Thomas Online Conflict Strategies Questionnaire. Test "Strategies of Behavior in Conflict Situations" (adapted by N.V.

Attention! To stay up to date with the latest updates, I recommend that you Subscribe to my Main YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78TufDQpkKUTgcrG8WqONQ , since I now create all new materials in video format. Also, just recently I opened my second channel entitled " World of Psychology ", where short videos are published on a variety of topics, covered through the prism of psychology, psychotherapy and clinical psychiatry.
Check out my services(prices and rules for online psychological counseling) You can in the article “”.

Communication. Communication Strategies:

Compromise in business relations and compromise cooperation is the most difficult strategy for the competitive behavior of individuals in business and any other business to describe. This strategy is usually based on solidarity and potential, as well as the need for cooperation between two parties, participants in a business agreement or parties that compete with each other. By applying compromise in business cooperation, you can easily reach a “peaceful line” and, without significant expenditure of effort and time, make competitors partners or resolve conflicts that have arisen in the business sphere. 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 relationships
The general concept of “business relations” is considered to be any communication (negotiations) that, by its purposefulness, is aimed at obtaining or promoting business ideas or fruitful results of partnership cooperation. Business relationships may include: certain negotiations or meetings, presentations, public speaking or telephone conversations with suppliers, customers, partners. We are talking exclusively about those relationships that occur 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 compromises in business relationships are the main core of successful transactions and contracts, as well as the ideal way to achieve heights and good ratings in your business. In a word, you can’t 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 business relations is explained by the fact that a business relationship, business communication is, first of all, a relationship that is aimed at obtaining a certain result.
So in such relationships, an acceptable and positive result is always put in first place, for the sake of which, as they say, “all methods are good.” In this relationship (cooperation), the first place is given to the informational and mutually beneficial stages of forming the company’s status. In business relationships, we are always talking about a matter that carries specificity and effectiveness. The purpose of such relationships 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 relationships you should not take the side of a “dry and callous person”, a strategist who always goes towards his goal; here it is also appropriate to show emotionality, which significantly increases motivation. After all, communicating only about specific results can sometimes not bring results. That is why the essence of business ethics always includes correct regulation and the correct compromise between the outcome and the relationship.

The main approach to business communication in general terms
When considering business relationships in general terms, we must first of all pay special attention to the strategy by which these very relationships are built. In other words, goals and how and in what way we approach the expected result. If your business partner adheres to the strategy of the conqueror, and believes that there cannot be two winners at once and does not recognize concessions at all, this is where it would be appropriate to build a compromise in the relationship with this partner. So, if during business negotiations you notice that your business partner is behaving this way, offer him a constructive and mutually beneficial compromise.

Compromise strategy in business relationships
So, compromise is the most revered and often used specificity for solving a particular problem. In a compromise, each party demands what it needs and does so until one mutual basis for cooperation is found.
Most experts are inclined to believe that compromise is the leading way of influencing company managers.
It is worth saying that when using a strategic compromise, the mismatch occurs much more constructively. And such a strategy can easily protect 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 echoes and omissions, and receive the fruits of this cooperation. Of course, this strategy, like all others, also has its drawback, which is related to the fact that 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 regarding what will have to be sacrificed and what exactly needs to be done first. Whatever you say, in any case you want to achieve a greater result, and it is precisely for this reason that a compromise, only at first glance, may seem like the most advantageous and correct solution.
But no matter what, compromise can quickly and relatively easily resolve the situation. The most acceptable way to solve a problem when using a compromise is considered to be the settlement of secondary issues with its help. That is why it is still not worth resorting to compromise in very important matters. After all, you can always try to avoid the pitfalls that arise in business relationships and choose a completely different and correct strategy, without sacrificing anything, and which will moderately take into account the interests of each party. Remember that all compromises are good in moderation and therefore should not be abused! Good luck to you in your business and fewer reasons for compromise!

The interactive side of communication
A conventional term denoting the characteristics of communication components associated with the interaction of people and the direct organization of their joint activities. The goals of communication reflect the needs of joint activities of people. 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 reactions to each other’s actions unfolded over time: the action of individual A, which changes the behavior of individual B, causes responses from the latter, which, in turn, affect the behavior of A.
The interactive side of communication examines the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities.
A special direction has emerged in social psychology, where the interactive side of communication is taken as the starting point of any socio-psychological analysis. This direction - symbolic interactionism - is associated with the name of G. Mead.
Clarifying the social nature of the human “I,” Mead came to the conclusion that the formation of the “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, becoming aware of oneself, and not just looking at other people as in a mirror, but acting together with them.

K. Thomas and R. Killmann wrote about the possibilities and typology of joint activities, identifying the following five main 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 to which one’s own interests are realized and one’s goals are achieved.
2. A measure in which the interests of the other party are taken into account and realized. If we present this in graphical form, we get the Thomas-Kilmann 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 behavioral styles.
Evasion (avoidance, withdrawal). This form of behavior is chosen when an individual does not want to defend his rights, cooperate to develop a solution, refrains from expressing his position, and avoids arguing. This style suggests 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 complex and resolving 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 an individual’s active struggle for his interests, the use of all means available to him to achieve the goals of power, coercion, and other means of putting pressure on opponents, and 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 are assumed if they resist.

Accommodation (accommodation). The actions of an individual are aimed at maintaining or restoring favorable relations with an opponent by smoothing out disagreements 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 conflict is used if the situation is not particularly significant, if it is more important to maintain good relations with the opponent than to defend one’s own interests, if the individual has little chance of winning, little power.

Cooperation means that the individual is active in searching for a solution that satisfies all participants in the interaction, but does not forget his own interests. An open exchange of views and the interest of all parties to the conflict in developing a common solution are assumed. This form requires positive work and participation from all parties. If opponents have time, and solving 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 while respecting the interests of all participants are possible.

In 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 particularly wins, but no one loses either. This style of behavior is applicable provided that the opponents have the same power, have mutually exclusive interests, they do not have a large reserve of time to find a better solution, and they are satisfied with an intermediate solution for a certain period of time.

In competition and cooperation confrontation is a necessary condition for reaching a solution. Considering that when resolving a conflict, it is assumed that the causes that gave rise to it are eliminated, we can conclude: only a style of cooperation will help to fully realize this task. When avoiding and adapting, the resolution of the conflict is postponed, and the conflict itself becomes hidden. Compromise can only bring a partial resolution of conflict interaction, since a fairly large area of ​​mutual concessions remains, and the causes 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. These are extremely difficult issues 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 an expansion of the zone of conflict interaction.
The ideal strategy is to finally resolve the conflict, the essence of which is to find and eliminate its causes within the framework of voluntary cooperation of the parties. This strategy benefits everyone. First, it turns opponents into partners. Secondly, the problem is not driven deeper, but ceases to exist altogether. Third, the benefits gained by the parties exceed those that could be obtained with any other strategy. This strategy is based on treating conflict as a normal phenomenon.
Source: Andreeva I.V., Social psychology

5 conflict strategies: avoidance, concession, competition, compromise and cooperation
Have you ever wondered why it is so difficult to reach an agreement with each other in a conflict situation? Why do “barriers” arise in communication, why are words and desires perceived incorrectly and “do not reach” the interlocutor? Research into communication problems and practical observations make it possible to divide all techniques and types of responses in conflict into five behavioral strategies: avoidance, concession, competition, compromise and cooperation.
American psychologists R. Blake and J. Mouton described a model of behavior in conflict conditions. According to this model, there are two independent parameters of people’s behavior in conflict:
A) orientation towards achieving one’s own interests and goals and
B) orientation towards the interests of another, taking into account his needs and desires.

The combination and strength of expression of these two indicators gives 5 strategies for behavior in conflict

Focus on your interests	MAX	Rivalry		Cooperation
	Average		Compromise
	MIN	Avoidance		Concession
		MIN	average	MAX
	Focus on the interests of another person

1. Avoidance (avoidance of solving the situation)
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to get away from the conflict. This behavior occurs 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 situation in order to preserve the relationship.

2. Concession
A person who adheres to this strategy, just as in the previous case, seeks to escape the conflict. But the reasons for “leaving” in this case are different. A person who adopts a concession strategy sacrifices personal interests in favor of the interests of a rival.
This may be due to the psychological characteristics of a person - the inability and unwillingness to enter into confrontation.
Concessions can be made due to 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 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 highlighted 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 to a constructive resolution of the conflict situation.

3. Rivalry (coercion)
The choice of coercion strategy ultimately comes down to a choice: either winning or preserving the relationship. Each participant defends only their own interests, regardless of the interests of the other. With this strategy, power, the force of law, authority, manipulation, etc. are actively used.
In this way, you can resolve a conflict situation if the subject of the dispute is really very important for one of the participants and it is worth taking a risk for this. However, in most cases, even if the issue is resolved, the losing party is still in a state of hidden conflict and this will certainly manifest itself in another situation.

4. Compromise
In a compromise, none of the conflicting parties receives full satisfaction - everyone is forced to sacrifice their interests in some way. But the relationship seems to have been preserved!
The opinion that compromise is the best solution to conflict is quite common. However, in most cases, compromise cannot be considered as a way to resolve the conflict. This is just a stage on the path to finding an acceptable solution to the problem.

5. Cooperation
The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of orientation towards both one’s own interests and the interests of the opponent. This approach is based on satisfying the interests of both parties and maintaining interpersonal relationships. The subject of 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 a conflict. Only in this case there is complete satisfaction of the parties and confidence that the conflict has really been resolved, and not hidden for the time being in a distant corner.

One way or another, each strategy bears fruit and can resolve 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 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)
Anyone who chooses this strategy of behavior primarily proceeds from assessing personal interests in the conflict as high, and the interests of his opponent as low. The choice of coercion strategy ultimately comes down to a choice: either the interest of struggle or the relationship.
The choice to fight is distinguished by a style of behavior that is characteristic of a destructive model. With this strategy, power, the force of law, connections, authority, etc. are actively used. It is expedient and effective in two cases. Firstly, when protecting the interests of the case from attacks on them by a conflicting personality. For example, a conflict-ridden 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 team is threatened. In this case, a situation arises: “Who will win…”. It arises especially often in the context of reforming enterprises and institutions. Often, when reforming the organizational and staffing structure of an enterprise (institution), the supposed “infusion” of some divisions into others is unjustified. And in these cases, the person defending the interests of such units must take a tough position.

2. Care
The exit strategy is characterized by the desire to get away from the conflict. It is characterized by a low level of focus on personal interests and the 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 of significant importance for one or both parties, but is understated in the images of the conflict situation, that is, the subjects of 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.
Interpersonal relationships do not undergo major changes when choosing this strategy.

3. Concession
A person who adheres to this strategy, just as in the previous case, seeks to escape 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, a person who adopts a concession strategy sacrifices personal interests in favor of the interests of his opponent.
The strategy of concession has some similarities with the strategy of coercion. This similarity lies in the choice between the value of the subject of conflict and the value of interpersonal relationships. Unlike the fight strategy, the concession strategy gives priority to interpersonal relationships.
When analyzing this strategy, there are some points to consider:
1) Sometimes this 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 may 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 resolution of the conflict.
3) This strategy can be dominant for a person due to his individual psychological characteristics. In particular, this is typical for a conformist personality, a conflict personality of the “conflict-free type.” Because of this, the concession strategy can give a constructive conflict a destructive direction.

With all the highlighted 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 and is an important step towards a 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 average 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 significant points.
1) Compromise cannot be considered as a way to resolve conflict. Mutual concession is often a step towards finding an acceptable solution to a problem.
2) Sometimes a compromise can resolve a conflict situation. This occurs when the circumstances that caused the tension change. For example, two employees applied for the same position, which should become vacant in six months. But after three months she was laid off. The subject of the conflict has disappeared.
3) Compromise can take active and passive forms. An active form of compromise can manifest itself in concluding clear agreements, accepting certain obligations, etc. Passive compromise is nothing more than a refusal to take 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 action towards each other. Three months later, the position for which they applied was reduced, each remained with their own interests, and the absence of unnecessary “battles” made it possible to maintain normal relations between them.

When analyzing the compromise strategy, one should also keep in mind that the conditions of compromise may be imaginary when the subjects of conflict interaction have reached a compromise on the basis of inadequate images of the conflict situation.
The concept of “compromise” is close in 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 of social interaction. Therefore, when analyzing and justifying a compromise strategy, it is important to rely on the rules and mechanisms for achieving consensus in social practice.

5. Cooperation
The cooperation strategy is characterized by a high level of focus on both one’s own interests and the interests of the opponent. This strategy is built not only on the basis of a balance of interests, but also on recognition of the value of interpersonal relationships.
When analyzing the strategy of cooperation in conflict interaction, some circumstances should be taken into account:
1) The subject of 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 there can be no talk of cooperation. In this case, only the choice of struggle, competition is possible. Cooperation is possible only when the complex subject of the conflict allows the interests of the opposing parties to maneuver, ensuring their coexistence within the framework of the problem that has arisen 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 play a subordinate role in the complex process of cooperation; they act to a greater extent as 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 its principled position in an adequate situation.

Being one of the most complex strategies, the cooperation strategy reflects the desire of the opposing parties to jointly resolve the problem that has arisen.
In any conflict, each participant evaluates and correlates his interests and the interests of his opponent, asking himself the questions: what will I gain, what will I lose, what significance does the subject of the dispute have for the opponent. Based on such an 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 behavior in conflict interaction is saturated with powerful emotional tension and is spontaneous.
A special place in assessing the models and strategies of a person’s behavior in a conflict is occupied by the value of interpersonal relationships with the opposing party. If for one of the rivals interpersonal relationships with another rival (friendship, love, partnership, etc.) are of no value, his behavior in the conflict will be characterized by destructive content or extreme positions in strategy (coercion, struggle, rivalry). Conversely, the value of interpersonal relationships for the subject of conflict interaction, as a rule, is a significant reason for constructive behavior in a conflict or the direction of such behavior towards compromise, cooperation, withdrawal or concession.

Five Types of Conflict 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 the center of attention;
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, and he tends to admire his own suffering and perseverance;
adapts well to different situations;
rational behavior is weakly expressed, emotional behavior is evident;
plans its activities situationally and poorly implements it;
avoids painstaking systematic work;
does not avoid conflicts, feels good in situations of conflict interaction;
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 one's own importance;
often does not take into account changes in situation and circumstances;
straightforward and inflexible;
has great difficulty accepting the point of view of others, does not really take their opinions into account;
takes expressions of respect from others for granted;
the expression of hostility on the part of others is perceived as an insult;
is uncritical of his actions;
painfully touchy, hypersensitive to imaginary or real 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 a high level of aspirations;
not self-critical;
tends to blame others for many failures and troubles;
cannot competently plan his activities or consistently implement plans;
the ability to correlate one’s actions with goals and circumstances is insufficiently developed;
draws little benefit from past experiences (even bitter ones).

4) Ultra-precise type (Anankast, Anxious-Evasion):
is meticulous about his work;
places increased demands on oneself;
makes high demands on others, and does it in such a way that the people with whom he works perceive it as nagging;
has increased anxiety;
overly sensitive to details;
tends to attach undue importance to the comments of others;
sometimes he abruptly breaks off relations with friends and acquaintances because it seems to him that he was offended;
suffers from himself, experiences his miscalculations, failures, sometimes even paying for them with illnesses (insomnia, headaches, etc.);
restrained in external, especially emotional manifestations;
does not feel very well the real relationships in the group.

5) Conflict-free type (Conformal, Unstable):
unstable in assessments and opinions;
is easily suggestible;
internally contradictory;
he is characterized by some inconsistency of behavior;
focuses on immediate success in situations;
does not see the future well enough;
depends on the opinions of others, especially leaders;
excessively strives for compromise;
does not have sufficient willpower;
does not think deeply about the consequences of his actions and the reasons for the actions of others.

Although this may seem strange, there is one important piece of advice to give here: be empathetic towards people whose typical characteristics are described above. Conflict, which has become a personality trait, is difficult to overcome through rational self-control and willpower. “Educational” influences on the part of the manager are also rarely beneficial here. Conflict is not the fault, but the misfortune of such people. A specialist - a practical psychologist - can provide them with real help.
Mikhail Goncharov

FOUR ROADS OUT OF CONFLICT
“Is it possible to learn to avoid conflicts?” - this question is usually of interest to people who lose in conflict situations, succumb to pressure and have a hard time experiencing the psychological consequences of conflicts. But you can probably avoid conflicts altogether if you just go to the mountains, live in an ashram and meditate all day long. But in society, in a metropolis, 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 running away
You give up your positions without a fight. Let me emphasize that no strategy is good or bad, each works in certain situations. If a robber has a gun to your head, giving him money is the best way to get out of the conflict, unless you are a martial arts expert.
2. Fight
As one business coach said: “tough negotiations are about who can eat who and faster.” In ancient times they said the same thing: “Let the strongest win!” Evaluate your resources before choosing this method of conflict resolution.
3. Compromise
Most negotiations (bargaining) follow the strategy of compromise. The boss increases your salary, but less than you asked. The seller reduces the price, but not as much as you would like. A good additional strategy for finding a compromise is to increase the overall pie. Benefits, bonuses, additional services - all this helps to reach a compromise.
4. Cooperation
This strategy is often called “win-win,” meaning that each side fully achieves the goals it set out to achieve. Despite the hackneyed nature, I will give a “bearded” example of this strategy, since I have not yet found a better one.
Husband and wife share an orange. When choosing an exit strategy, the wife (let's assume) gives the orange to her beloved husband. The fighting strategy also ends in the victory of the husband due to physical superiority. An implementation of the compromise strategy is to simply cut the orange in half. And following the “win-win” strategy, the 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, but underlying them lie genuine interests, and they can be reconciled! But first you need to get to them!
So, during the negotiations, it turns out that the husband wants to eat the orange, that is, he needs its pulp. And my wife needs an orange peel for culinary experiments. And then a clear and simple solution is revealed: the orange is peeled and everyone gets exactly what they wanted. Hooray!
It can be difficult to look for this strategy every time, but for building promising relationships and long-term cooperation, this strategy is usually the best.
Author of the article: Ilya Shabshin

K. Thomas' typology of conflict behavior is based on 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 one's own interests.
According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following methods of conflict resolution:
a) confrontation (competition, rivalry) is expressed in the desire to achieve satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of the interests of another person;
b) compliance (adaptation), which means, in contrast to competition, sacrificing one’s own interests for the sake of the interests of another;
c) compromise, as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, reached through mutual concessions;
d) avoidance (withdrawal, ignoring), which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals;
e) cooperation, when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.

K. Thomas believes that when conflict is avoided, none of the parties achieves success; in cases of confrontation, compliance and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or they lose because 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 achieve them. True, in very different ways: without regard to the other or in cooperation, positive interaction with someone who is in the same conflict.

Avoidance and compliance- weak strategies. They involve abandoning one's own goals and needs. But for what? For the sake of the other, to avoid all the ups and downs in relationships and self-esteem that interpersonal conflict brings with it. But conflict calm is deceptive: while promising peace, it brings with it the destruction of relationships.

After taking the Thomass-Killman test, look at your strategic chart. What types of conflict behavior are at their peak? Strong or weak? Are there any gaps in your schedule? What behavioral strategies do you currently not possess or do not consciously use?

A) This is the schedule 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 my partner turns out to be stronger, I will give in.
But no compromises!

V)"Me or no one." No comments needed.

G) The graph, one might say, reflects the stylistic characteristics of a professional practicing psychologist. The main strategic feature of behavior is cooperation. However, confrontation can be used for tactical purposes. Avoidance for those situations when the psychologist feels incapacitated in solving the client’s problems (search for another specialist). And compromises and compliance in practical work are dangerous even as a tactical technique.

Let's talk about the possibilities of each of the five strategies.
Avoidance effective in situations where the partner has objectively greater power and uses it in the conflict struggle. When dealing with a difficult conflict personality, use every opportunity to avoid conflict: there is nothing shameful or humiliating in this. Avoidance also brings positive results as a temporary delay in the real resolution of the conflict: while there is little data on hand or there is no psychological confidence in one’s position. Temporarily avoiding a problem in order to solve it completely in the future is often the only correct strategy.

Compliance is natural in situations where the problem raised is not as important for a person as for his opponent, or relationships with an opponent are of independent value, more significant than achieving a goal. This is a strategy with unpredictable consequences. If giving up a goal doesn't cost a person much, compliance can have a positive impact on their self-esteem and relationship with their partner. It is very important to feel that the other noticed and appreciated the victim. Otherwise, there remains a feeling of annoyance, resentment and, consequently, the ground for emotional conflict.

Confrontation - a strategy for serious situations and vital problems, it is often effective in extreme situations. Confrontation is justified if the goal is extremely important, or if a person has real strength and authority and is confident in his competence. If power and strength are not enough, you can get bogged down in a conflict situation, or even lose it altogether. In addition, its use to solve problems in personal relationships is fraught with alienation.

Cooperation - this is not so much a behavior strategy as an interaction strategy. It is indispensable in close, long-term and valuable relationships for both partners, with equality of status and psychological power. It allows partners to resolve conflict without giving up their real goals. Cooperation is good for everyone, except one. It's a long story. It takes time to analyze the needs, interests and concerns of both parties, and then carefully discuss them, find the best option for combining them, develop a solution plan and ways to implement it, etc. Cooperation does not tolerate fuss and haste, but, requiring time, allows conflicts to be resolved 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 that require a quick outcome. “Dividing” needs is sometimes necessary to preserve relationships, especially in cases where it is truly impossible to compensate for the interests of the parties. Compromise rarely brings true satisfaction with the result of the conflict process. Any variants of division - in half, equally, fraternally - are psychologically unfair. And this is understandable: the goal has not been fully achieved, some of it has been thrown on the altar of a positive outcome of the conflict, but there is no one to appreciate the sacrifice, since the opponent also suffered (well, not exactly the same, less, naturally, but still...).

Strategies for behavior in conflict by K. Thomas
Our losses in disputes are incalculable.
By denying another request to an unlucky relative or childhood friend, you are certainly doing a good thing - teaching him to grow up. (Victor Khanin)
“How much does it cost to “be yourself”?
Having stopped at a traffic light, two dashing drivers rushed along the road, demonstrating to each other the power of their engines and their own skills. Passing and oncoming cars shy away from each other, their drivers twirl their fingers at their temples... And at the next intersection, both reckless drivers, bending over two piles of iron that just a second ago were “cool cars,” scratch their heads in puzzlement: “Aren’t we both fools?” ?

Our losses in disputes are incalculable. Why can't people agree? Why does a person’s logic fade away in arguments and is he ready to lose everything just to prove his toughness? How can a person cope with what arises in him instead of reason? Why and what are we being scammed on?
Arms race: victory is nothing, war is everything

We meet characters who seem to have come out of a joke about two cowboys who ate cow pats for free on a bet at every step. For them, the process of arguing overshadows the result they want to achieve. Such items occupy a special place in the collections of practicing lawyers specializing in business law. Psychologists can devote hours to describing similar types of characters.

The President of the Business Consulting law firm, Vladimir Sivkov, knows dozens of stories when a client tries by any means to prove that he is right, and does not make any reasonable compromises with the opposing party:

— Often, in the heat of an argument, the lion’s share of what a person has is burned. There are cases when yesterday's business partners, having gotten into a fight, lost their own relationships, the respect of others, and, ultimately, the business itself. Reasonable arguments, attempts to evaluate the dispute from an economic point of view, persuasion to agree to a settlement - nothing works when such a person has already bitten the bit and went on principle.

To adhere to principle means to declare the impossibility of compromise. There are a lot of 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 the fact of victory over the opponent becomes more important.

American psychologist Kenneth W. Thomas many years ago formulated the patterns of human behavior that they choose at one time or another in communication. There are only five of them, and Thomas often teased his colleagues and listeners of his lectures: name the sixth. No one could: any life situation fit into the principle of the “five strategies”.

The first is avoiding a dispute, moving away from it, or formal contact. At the same time, the interlocutor may nod and assent, but at the same time, one should not have any illusions: deep down in his soul, he is pursuing his own interests. The second is suppression. A person tries to win at the expense of someone else's loss. Accordingly, the third model is a concession. Under someone's pressure, a person prefers to give in so as not to run into trouble. The fourth is a compromise, when victory and defeat are divided in half: everyone wins something, but also sacrifices something. Finally, the fifth is cooperation, when yesterday’s opponents find a common “platform” through joint efforts, unite around it and thereby strengthen their positions.

The last model, emphasizes Victor Khanin, is ideal for business; the business world presupposes just such a model of behavior. But based on the experience of business training, the psychologist makes a sad conclusion: 80% of representatives of our business community have not even tried either the compromise model or the cooperation model.

— In any situation, people most often resort to the strategy of suppression. And if suppression for some reason does not work, they draw the only conclusion: they need to resort to more sophisticated methods and increase pressure. When you talk to them about cooperation, they perceive it as a call for concession. This is expressed quite clearly in litigation. Such people need to win the trial, 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! We’ll see what the appeal says and how he jumps with us”...

Developmental psychologists say that the logic of competition in school and adolescence is even good. Having suffered from the strategy of suppression and concessions in childhood fights and loud arguments, a person grows wiser 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 produces results for many years, and a person, believing in the effectiveness of such behavior, carries it into adulthood. Such people obviously consider their opponent a sucker and try to deceive him. At the same time, deep down in their souls, they are most afraid of only one thing - to turn out to be (or appear to others) to be that same 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 have before us 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 often happens.

Well, what if two such “psychopaths” collided in an argument? Well, expect an arms race and military conflicts of varying degrees of locality. It really won’t seem like much to those around you - just ask the Georgians and 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 the kiss of lovers against the backdrop of the sunset. The last phrase of any fairy tale is “have a merry feast and for the wedding” or the abstract “live 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 everyday fragments. What seemed sweet and insignificant yesterday turns into severe disappointments today.

Psychologist Eric Berne, author of the famous book Games People Play, convincingly explained how difficult and painful it is to part with illusions. After all, this often means admitting one’s own mistakes and delusions. Therefore, most often people look for the root of existing problems in their partner.

“And I gave my best years to this man!” - Thumbelina exclaims, making sure that in her search for the elf she has once again run into some Beetle or Mole. “I did everything for this ungrateful fool, and she sat on a swallow and flew away!” - Mole screams indignantly, with legitimate pride inspecting the grain reserves that were created by his painstaking work.

Well, often these reserves become considerably thinner as a result of divorce proceedings. “Take everything from this bastard!” - from love to hate for any Thumbelina - one step. “Yes, she went... to the trash heap where I picked her up!” - The mole is offended 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 - down to the last teaspoon. Decent, wealthy and well-mannered people sometimes get into such a situation that after five minutes of communicating with them you want to wash your hands with soap and bleach. Moreover, as a rule, spouses who have something to share other than their grandmother’s sideboard and grandfather’s “Moskvich” turn to professional lawyers. We all know that then such a process becomes not only a source of good income for lawyers, but also the topic of the front pages of yellow newspapers.

Family psychologists confirm that most often complaints about problems in family life begin with a discussion of who has invested more in the marriage. A man talks about his battles for material well-being, a woman talks about her worries “about home, about family,” and that “everyone rides her.” It is extremely rare to find a marriage in which people understand the voluntariness and adequacy of the other person's contribution. More often they divide, subtract and count. Who is bigger? Who is smaller? They again forget about the strategy of partnership, when they can add and multiply, escaping into the strategy of suppression: making their life easier at the expense of the other’s concessions. What kind of love and mutual trust is there...

Psychologist Victor Khanin says that “trust” is nothing more than one of the most powerful tricks of the suppression strategy. Question: “Don’t you trust me?” - designed to make the opponent fade away. 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, 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 has taken root so poorly in our soil, is an unconditional blessing. Moreover, the contract itself does not need to be concluded: Victor Khanin believes that even discussing such a possibility by a couple intending to get married is a good sign. This suggests that people realize that more than just moon kisses await them, and they are already ready to work together to overcome potential difficulties.

On the contrary, avoiding this topic - including under the pretext “You don’t trust me?!” - should make you wary. Why is a partner afraid to discuss something that 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...

Dear brothers and sisters!
At the everyday level, each of us is well aware of the concept of investment. We give birth to a child, feed him, take out his potty, wash his clothes and wash the dishes, buy him toys, scold him for failing him and suffer without sleep when he wanders around somewhere at night looking. All this is not only parental love, but also the expectation that in old age they will bring us the proverbial glass of water. When everyone doesn’t carry water, but does God knows what, bitter resentments arise. Here it is, the very risk that businessmen are constantly worried 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 understanding that “the train has already left,” but we continue to cause and increase the dull rejection of the other side.

The protracted conflict between fathers and children is a classic of the genre. These clever writers can spin stories about spiritual values ​​and the struggle between old and new. From a psychological point of view, the basis of such conflicts most often lies in resentment over unjustified investments, on the one hand, and irritation from inflated, speculative expectations of profits, on the other.

Psychoanalysis and jurisprudence also make good money from less close family relationships. From the outside, the relationship between brothers and sisters may seem idyllic, but if we remove the “later layers” from people in the form of education, morality and decency, we will find the same biblical story of Cain and Abel - enmity for parental love and its manifestations: toys, sweets and new clothes. In this feud, the rivals are literally ready to kill each other. The option with Abel is being used less and less today, but litigation between relatives is common. Dividing the inheritance - all these toys and sweets - they wage a war for the material manifestations of parental love.

Victor Khanin says that in disputes between relatives, including in the struggle over inheritance, people, just like in disputes between wife and husband, begin to find out who took more care of the deceased, visited him more often, gave gifts, washed the apartment and carried out "duck". The theory of “five behavior patterns” is also applicable. And again, as in the cases described above, most people operate within the framework of only two strategies - pressure and concession. True, there is one peculiarity. “Close people are the most convenient object for manipulation,” says Khanin. - After all, unlike a stranger, we know their pros and cons, weaknesses and “pain points” much better.

By the way, about psychoanalysis. The conflict of the struggle for parental love was best demonstrated by the students of its creator, Sigmund Freud. Being outstanding psychologists and very smart people, they still did not escape 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...

Victory of the forces of reason over the forces of good
Relations between relatives are not always rosy. But when we gather 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 about this, under no circumstances! After all, we are a family, we must help each other!

The same can be said about 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 reasonably, from his point of view: what else are friends for, if not to help each other out?

We have grown up. Many of us went into business and politics. Thousands know us, the fates of hundreds depend on our decisions, dozens of people respect us. We are experienced, purposeful, and in control of all aspects of our lives. But the shadows of the past still loom over us.

Everyone who has made it into the public eye today has in their biography at least one call from their cousin’s nephew, who is about to “start his own business” and asks for a loan of money. As an option - a sincere request from an aunt whose unlucky son just can’t find a job - “so, Serezhenka, won’t you help, in a family way”? How many times, quietly swearing and realizing that their nephew would never return the money, and they would have to blush for their aunt’s son, did they still take out their wallet and call their business partners asking them to hire “their little man”? Thus, they wasted their nerves, time, money and other resources. Because otherwise, they won’t understand, they’ll call you an “evil man,” and they’ll glorify you in front of all your 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 driven into our heads from early childhood, petrified in our minds to the hardness of a diamond. Not a single person, unless he is a carrier of a 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 expensive and harmful both for the one who asks to do a good deed and for the one who performs it.

Victor Khanin:
— When a child comes running to his father in tears and says that he was beaten by children on the street, the father often goes into the yard and pulls out the hooligans’ ears. From the child's point of view, his father did good - he punished the offenders. From the point of view of the father himself, he also behaved like a “good father” and stood up for the child. But in reality, he made his son's problems worse by not giving him the opportunity to learn to deal with his own problems. In the future, dependence on the protection of adults will live in such a “child”, even when he turns 30 years old.

Getting rid of childhood fears and addictions is not easy for everyone. On the one hand, turning to an “adult”, an accomplished friend or relative, for help, a person plays like a child seeking protection. On the other hand, no one wants to be “bad,” but refusing a request is regarded as evil. Even seasoned businessmen who fall into the trap of choosing between “good” and “evil” are easily fooled. They see no other way out but to appear “kind” to their detriment.

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 creature, a dependent. The child does not produce anything that could have weight and value in the “adult” market. He is forced to be “good” by giving in to their demands. He must adapt to their decisions, predict what reaction his behavior will cause from adults. 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 about him.

“Have you changed your mind?!” - the relative begins to press, realizing that he will not see the money like last year’s snow. Yes, he changed, but what’s wrong with that - the circumstances have changed. “You have become completely different,” the aunt says reproachfully, after listening to the refusal to work for her son. Of course, he did, and it wouldn’t hurt your son either.
By denying another request to an unlucky relative or childhood friend, you are certainly doing a good thing - teaching him to grow up. It's a small matter. 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.”
Material prepared by Galina Kitayeva.

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 one’s own interests. According to these two main dimensions, the following methods (strategies) of conflict resolution are distinguished:

· Rivalry: The least effective, but most often used method of behavior in conflicts is expressed in the desire to achieve satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another. Man using style rivalry, is not interested in cooperation with others and achieves his goal using his abilities to dominate, to force them to accept the solution to the problem he needs.

· Device: means, in contrast to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another. When using this style, there is participation in the situation and agreement to do what the other wants.

· Compromise: compromise as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, achieved through mutual concessions. When using a style compromise both sides give up 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 achieved at a more superficial level - one concedes in something, the other too, as a result it becomes possible to come to a common decision. With compromise, there is no search for hidden interests; only what everyone says about their desires is considered. In this case, the causes of the conflict are not addressed. There is no search to eliminate them, but to find a solution that satisfies the immediate interests of both parties.

· Evasion (avoidance): which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals. The person does not stand up for his rights, does not cooperate with anyone to develop a solution, or avoids resolving the conflict. This is done by avoiding the problem (leaving the room, changing the topic, etc.), ignoring it, shifting responsibility for the decision to someone else, postponing the decision, etc.

· Cooperation: when participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties. One who follows style cooperation, actively participates in conflict resolution and defends his interests, but at the same time tries to cooperate with another person. This style requires a longer investment of time than others because 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, cooperation is the most difficult, but the most effective style in complex 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-Gilland, 1994).

A subtle experiment by Robin Dawes (1980, 1984) illustrates this. Imagine that the experimenter offers you and each of six unknown participants the following choice: you can keep $6 for yourself or give it to others through the experimenter, knowing that he will double the amount and give each of the six participants $2. No one will know whether you decided to give the money or keep it. Thus, if all seven cooperate and give money, each receives $12. If you alone keep the money and the other six give it away, you will have $18. If you give and the rest keep, you will receive nothing. Obviously, cooperation is 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 mistrust. Without discussion, those who expect that others will not cooperate tend to become uncooperative themselves (Messe & Sivacek, 1979; Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977). One who does not trust others is almost obliged to refuse to cooperate (to protect himself from exploitation). Lack of cooperation, in turn, increases mistrust (“What can I do? In this world, man is a wolf”). In experiments, communication reduces mistrust by allowing people to reach an agreement that provides their mutual benefit. (see D. Myers Social Psychology, St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. P. 651)

Stages of conflict resolution in a collaborative style:

1. Recognize the existence of a conflict those. recognize the existence of opposing goals and methods among opponents, and identify these participants themselves. In practice, these issues are not so easy to resolve; it can be quite difficult to admit and state 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 current situation.

2. Determine the possibility of negotiations. After acknowledging the existence of a conflict and the impossibility of resolving it “on the spot,” it is advisable to agree on the possibility of holding negotiations and clarify what kind of negotiations: with or without a mediator and who can be a mediator that is equally satisfactory for both parties.

3. Agree on the negotiation procedure. Determine where, when and how negotiations will begin, i.e. stipulate the timing, place, procedure for conducting negotiations, and the start time of joint activities.

4. Identify the range of issues that constitute the subject of the conflict. The main problem is to define in shared terms what is in 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 solutions. When working together, the parties offer several options decisions with calculation of costs for each of them, taking into account possible consequences.

6. Make an agreed decision. After considering a number of possible options, during mutual discussion and provided that the parties come to an agreement, it is advisable to present this general decision in writing: a communiqué, resolution, cooperation agreement, etc. In particularly complex or critical cases, written documents are drawn up after each stage of negotiations.

7. Implement the decision made in practice. If the process of joint action ends only with the adoption of a well-developed and agreed upon decision, and then nothing happens or changes, then this situation can be the detonator of other, stronger and longer-lasting conflicts. The reasons that caused the first conflict have not disappeared, but have only been strengthened by unfulfilled promises. Repeated negotiations will be much more difficult.

In our country, the test was adapted by N.V. Grishina to study personal predisposition to conflict behavior.

In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas emphasized changing the traditional attitude towards 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 must be resolved or eliminated. The goal of conflict resolution, then, was some ideal conflict-free state where people work in complete harmony. However, recently there has been a significant change in the attitude of specialists to this aspect of conflict research.

It was caused, according to K. Thomas, by at least two circumstances: the realization of the futility of efforts to completely eliminate conflicts and the increasing number of studies pointing to the positive functions of conflicts.

Hence, according to the author, the emphasis should be transferred from eliminating conflicts to managing them. In accordance with this, K. Thomas considers it necessary to concentrate attention 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 resolution:

1)competition (competition) as the desire to achieve satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another;

2) device, meaning, in contrast to rivalry, sacrificing one’s own interests for the sake of another;

3) compromise;

4) avoidance, which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals;

5) cooperation when participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.

K. Thomas believes that when avoiding conflict, neither party achieves success in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, or 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 to identify typical forms of behavior, K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options with 12 judgments about the individual’s behavior 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 give others the opportunity to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.

B. Rather than discussing what we disagree on, I try to draw attention to what we both disagree with.

2. A. I try 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. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.

4. A. I try to find a compromise solution.

B. Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the sake of the interests of another person.

5. A. When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another.

B. I try to do everything to avoid tension.

6. A. I'm trying to avoid causing trouble for myself.

B. I try to achieve my goal.

7. A. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.

B. I consider it possible to give in to something in order to achieve something else.

8. A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.

B. I first try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.

9. A. I think that you should not always worry about any disagreements that arise.

B. I make efforts to achieve my goal.

10. A. I am determined to achieve my goals.

B. I'm trying to find a compromise solution.

11. A. The first thing I do is try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.

B. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.

12. A. I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.

13. A. I propose a middle position.

B. I insist that it be done my way.

14. A. I tell the other person my point of view and ask about his views.

B. I am trying to show the other the logic and advantages of my views.

15. A. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.

B. I try to do everything necessary to avoid tension.

16. A. I try not to hurt the feelings of another.

B. I am trying to convince another of the benefits of my position.

17. A. Usually I persistently try to achieve my goal.

B. I try to do everything to avoid unnecessary tension.

18. A. If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.

B. I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also meets me halfway.

19. A. The first thing I do is try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.

B. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.

20. A. I am trying to overcome our differences immediately.

B. I try to find the best combination of gains and losses for everyone.

21. A. When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.

B. I always tend to discuss the problem directly.

22. A. I try to find a position that is midway between my position and the other person's point of view.

B. I stand up for my desires.

23. A. I am concerned to satisfy everyone's desires.

B. Sometimes I provide opportunities for others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.

24. A. If the position of another seems very important to him, I will try to meet his wishes.

B. I try to persuade the other to reach 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 attentive to the wishes of the other.

26. A. I propose a middle position.

B. I am almost always concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.

27. A. I avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.

B. If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.

28. A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.

B. When dealing with a situation, I usually try to find support from the other person.

29. A. I propose a middle position.

B. I think that you should not always worry about any disagreements that arise.

30. A. I try not to hurt the feelings of another.

B. I always take 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

The test subjects' answers are evaluated in accordance with 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 display appropriate forms of behavior in conflict situations.

Levels of expression of strategies

0 – 3 – low;

4 – 8 – average;

9 – 12 – high.

Cooperation. Following this style, a person actively participates in conflict resolution and defends his interests, while trying, however, to cooperate with the other person. This style requires more work than most other approaches to conflict because the parties first lay out everyone's needs, concerns, and interests and then discuss them. This style is especially effective when the parties have different underlying needs. In such cases, it can be difficult to determine the source of dissatisfaction. At first, it may seem that both want the same thing or have opposing goals for the distant future, which is an immediate source of conflict. However, there are differences between external declarations or positions in a dispute and underlying interests or needs that serve as the true causes of a conflict situation.

Rivalry. A person who uses a competitive style is very active and prefers to go about resolving 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. Kilmann, this person usually tries first of all to satisfy his own interests to the detriment of the interests and claims of the opposite party, forcing her to accept his conditions for solving the problem. To achieve a goal, he uses his strong-willed qualities, and if his will is strong enough, then he succeeds.

Compromise. A person concedes 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 partial satisfaction of everyone’s desires. They do this by exchanging concessions and bargaining to develop a compromise solution. Such actions may resemble the cooperative style to some extent, but compromise is achieved at a more superficial level compared to cooperation. One person gives in on something, the other also gives in on 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 a cooperative style, but limit themselves only to telling each other about their desires.

Device. A person's adaptive behavior means that he sacrifices his interests in favor of the other party, yielding to it and accepting its solution to the problem. K. Thomas and R. Kilmann believe that this style is most effective when the outcome of the case is extremely important to the other party and not very significant to you, or when you are sacrificing your own interests in favor of the other party.

Avoidance. This style is implemented when a person does not defend his rights, does not cooperate with anyone to develop the best solution, and avoids resolving the conflict.

K. Thomas believes that when conflict is avoided, 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 because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation both parties benefit.

Tasks and guidelines To be completed

tests on the discipline

Conflicts between people inevitably arise. It is impossible to find two people whose opinions would completely coincide.

On the one hand, this is bad, but on the other, the presence of several points of view on the situation allows you to evaluate it from different angles and find the most optimal solution to the problem or task that has arisen. Paradoxical as it may seem, the right thing can even strengthen and improve relationships between people.

Behavior in a conflict situation

To overcome correctly, you need to choose the optimal line of behavior, but this is not at all easy. As a rule, each person has only one specific line, which he prefers not to change.

The issue in conflict situations was closely studied by the American psychologist Kenneth Thomas. He assessed people's actions according to two criteria:

• How much a person strives to defend his own interests in a dispute (assertiveness).
• How inclined a person is to take into account the interests of others (cooperation).

As a result of long research, the psychologist was able to identify five standard types of human behavior in a conflict situation. Subsequently, in collaboration with Ralph Kilman, he developed a special Thomas-Kilman test to determine which of these behavior patterns is most characteristic of a particular person.

Description of the technique

In many sources, this questionnaire is often called briefly - the Thomas test. Its description will take only a few lines.

Each of the five ways of responding to conflict is described using 12 judgments, and they, in turn, are randomly grouped into 30 pairs. The subject has to choose from each pair of statements the one that seems most true to him.

The text of the questionnaire itself is widely known and finding it is not difficult. For all its simplicity, the Thomas test, the results of which may be completely unexpected, can bring tangible benefits and significantly facilitate the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a person.

Interpretation of results

The key to the test is a special table, with which you can determine what type of behavior in a conflict the subject is most prone to. Having recognized this type, you can easily predict how the conflict will develop and what needs to be done to resolve it as quickly as possible.

Thomas's methodology assumes that each person tends to act in a conflict situation according to one of five scenarios. For special clarity, they can be compared with the behavior of a particular animal:

• Shark - competition, competition.
• A teddy bear is a device, a desire to resolve a conflict.
• Turtle - evasion of conflict, its avoidance.
• Fox is a compromise.
• Owl - cooperation.

Each of these scenarios has its own positive and negative sides, and all of them are not universal, that is, they cannot constructively influence all conflict situations without exception.

Competition

The “shark” man tends to follow his own interests in everything, with absolutely no interest in the opinions of others. He does not accept compromises and believes that the victory of one always means the complete defeat of the other. In an effort to achieve his goal, such a person will go over his head without hesitation. His arsenal may even include actions that are not entirely legal and ethical; he can easily decide to commit deception, forgery, or provocation. The “Shark” always strives to have complete information about the enemy, but will never care about his good name or spiritual comfort.

This line of behavior can be justified only in an insignificant number of cases. Most often this happens in acute crisis situations, when a certain person vested with certain powers must very quickly restore order and present some result. In all other cases, the behavior of a “shark” is unacceptable and can quickly destroy any long-term relationship - both work and personal.

The Thomas test can easily identify such dangerous tendencies. A person’s conflict behavior is a serious problem for others, which means that special care will need to be taken when communicating with him.

Device

The exact opposite of the “shark” is the “teddy bear”. A person prone to this type of behavior can easily sacrifice his interests to please his opponent. As a rule, people who sincerely believe that their opinion should not be taken into account.

This line of behavior may be successful if the subject of the dispute is not of great importance. By yielding to your opponent, you can maintain friendly relations with him, and the consequences of the conflict will be minimal. However, refusal to defend one’s interests in any important dispute can negatively affect the events in the person’s life. He risks losing the respect of others and being branded spineless. Such people often become objects of manipulation.

If the Thomas test reveals a tendency to adapt, the person urgently needs to start working on his self-esteem, and as it increases, his behavior will change.

Avoidance

Turtle people hate conflicts, and therefore try in every possible way to postpone or avoid a showdown. This position is characterized not only by an inability to defend one’s own interests, but also by extreme inattention to the interests of others. Such a person prefers to hide from the problem rather than try to solve it. The reason for this is also the victim complex.

This type of behavior can be justified if the cause of the conflict is insignificant for both parties. In any serious situations, it can lead to a further increase in misunderstanding between people and an even greater accumulation of mutual claims. Such a protracted confrontation, painful for both sides, sooner or later ends in an explosion of emotions and a stormy showdown. The sad consequences of this may be irreversible.

If the Thomas test showed such a result, a person should be bolder and not be afraid of problems. It is important to understand that only a solved problem disappears, while an unresolved one deprives a person of strength and makes his life absolutely unbearable. You can't hide from this.

Compromise

Cunning “foxes” always try to negotiate with the enemy. However, partial satisfaction of the demands of both sides, as a rule, does not lead to the end of the conflict and serves only as a respite.

The weak point of the compromise position is its complete dependence on the position of the opponent, and if he is not ready to give up even the smallest part of his interests, the “fox” will invariably end up losing. It may also happen that the opposing side overestimates its demands, and then “generously” sacrifices them to the level it actually needs. That is why, before making a compromise, it is necessary to have all possible information about the subject of the dispute so as not to end up with nothing.

People whose testing showed this result should be more decisive and straightforward in defending their own interests.

Cooperation

The best way to resolve a dispute is to find a solution that would fully satisfy the claims of both parties. This requires undoubted diplomatic skills and wisdom. That is why people prone to this line of behavior were conventionally called “owls.”

Night owl people prefer not to get carried away by the external side of the conflict, but try to understand its underlying cause. In addition, they know how to be honest with their opponent and adapt well to his style of communication. Thanks to this tactic, they easily turn the enemy into a partner, and the conflict is quickly resolved through constructive negotiations.

If the Thomas test showed this result, the person can be safely congratulated. There should not be any major quarrels or conflicts in his life, and his own insight will help him achieve a lot.

Testing value

The Thomas-Kilman test is often used to test employees before hiring. Based on its results, it is easy to judge behavior in general. Thomas's technique allows you to assess what position a person will choose in relations with colleagues and superiors. This information will also give an idea of ​​how the appearance of a newcomer will affect the overall atmosphere in the team.

Taking the Thomas test will be beneficial for everyone. It will help you soberly assess your own behavior and understand what exactly is preventing you from successfully resolving disputes and remaining on good terms with others.

Test-questionnaire by K. Thomas for behavior in a conflict situation. (Thomas Method)

The K. Thomas 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 about other ways to resolve a conflict situation.

Using a special formula, you can calculate the outcome of the conflict.

Test-questionnaire by K. Thomas 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.

Stimulus material (questions).

A/ Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.

B/ Rather than discussing what we disagree on, I try to pay 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'm trying to find a compromise solution.

B/ Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the sake of the interests of another person.

A/ When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another.

A/ I try to avoid causing trouble for myself.

B/ I'm trying to achieve my goal.

A/ I try to put off solving a complex issue in order to finally resolve it over time.

B/ I consider it possible to give in to something in order to achieve something else.

A/ Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal.

B/ First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests and controversial issues involved are.

A/ I think that you shouldn’t always worry about any disagreements that arise.

B/ I make efforts to achieve my goal.

A/ I am determined to achieve my goal.

B/ I'm trying to find a compromise solution.

B/ I try to reassure the other and strive mainly to preserve our relationship.

B/ I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also agrees to meet me halfway.

B/ I am trying to convince another of the benefits of my position.

A/ I tell the other person my point of view and ask about his views.

B/ I am trying to show the other the logic and advantage of my views.

A/ I try to reassure the other and strive mainly to preserve our relationship.

B/ I try to do everything necessary to avoid tension.

A/ I try not to hurt the feelings of others.

B/ I am trying to convince another of the benefits of my position.

A/ Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal.

B/ I try to do everything to avoid unnecessary tension.

A/ If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.

B/ I will give another the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also meets me halfway.

A/ First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests involved and controversial issues are.

B/ I try to postpone the solution to a complex 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'm trying to find a position that is in the middle between mine and the one defended by others.

B/ I stand up for my desires.

A/ As a rule, I am concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.

B/ Sometimes I let others take over

responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.

A/ If the position of another seems very important to him, I will try to meet his wishes.

B/ I try to convince the other person of the need to reach a compromise.

A/ I am trying to show the other the logic and advantage of my views.

B/ When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.

A/ I propose a middle position.

B/ I am almost always concerned with satisfying everyone's desires.

A/ I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.

B/ If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.

A/ Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal.

B/ When resolving a controversial situation, I usually try to find support from another.

A/ I propose a middle position.

B/ I think that you shouldn’t always worry about any disagreements that arise.

A/ I try not to hurt the feelings of others.

B/ I always take such a position on a controversial issue so that we, together with another interested person, can achieve success.

Key to the Thomas test: types of behavior in conflict:

	Rivalry (Competition)	Cooperation	Compromise	Avoidance	Device

Processing and interpretation of test results:

The number of points scored by the subject on each scale gives an idea of ​​the severity of his tendency to display 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 protecting one's own interests.

Five ways to resolve conflicts.

According to these two methods of measurement, K. Thomas identified the following methods of conflict regulation:

Rivalry (competition) or administrative type, as the desire to achieve the satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another.

Adaptation (adjustment), meaning, as opposed to competition, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of the interests of another person.

Compromise or economic type.

Avoidance or traditional type, which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals.

Cooperation or corporate type, when participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.

He believed that by avoiding conflict, neither side would achieve success. In 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 to be when all five behavioral tactics are used, and each of them has a value in the range from 5 to 7 points. If your result is different from the optimal one, then some tactics are weakly expressed - they 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 the conflict situation

if sum B > sum A, your opponent has a chance to win the conflict.