Strategy is a method of action of a subject to achieve the main goal of influencing a communication partner.

Depending on the goals, the following leading tactics of behavior in interaction are distinguished:

• 1) cooperation - this form of interaction in which both communication partners promote each other in achieving individual and common goals of joint activities;
• 2) confrontation - partners oppose each other in achieving individual goals, focusing only on their own goals without taking into account the goals of the partner;
• 3) compromise interaction - communication partners in something promote, but in some ways oppose each other;
• 4) avoidance of interaction- partners try to avoid active interaction, avoid contacts, take the risk of not achieving their own goals in order to exclude the other’s gain;
• 5) contrast interaction- one of the partners tries to assist the other, and the latter actively opposes to him;
• 6) unidirectional assistance- one of the partners sacrifices his own goals and contributes to the achievement of the goals of the other, who avoids cooperation.

American psychologists L. Steinberg and J. Miller analyzed interaction from the perspective of control orientation and understanding orientation.

Control orientation involves the desire to control, manage the situation and behavior of others, usually combined with the desire to dominate in interaction.

Focus on Understanding involves seeking to understand the situation and behavior of others. It is associated with the desire to interact better and avoid conflicts, with ideas about the equality of partners in communication and the need to achieve mutual, rather than one-sided, satisfaction.

Analysis of the interaction when distinguishing these two orientations allows us to identify some interesting patterns of communication. Thus, “controllers” and “understanders” adhere to completely different strategies in communication.

Controller strategy - the desire to force the partner to accept his plan of interaction, to impose his understanding of the situation. Quite often, this strategy actually allows you to achieve control over the interaction.

Strategy "understander" implies adaptation to the partner.

It is significant that different orientations are associated with different distribution of positions in communication. Thus, “controllers” always strive for unequal interactions with subordinates and dominant positions of “vertical interaction.” An understanding orientation is more associated with equal horizontal interactions.

It should be noted that there are also opposite influences. For example, a person who is in communication at the very “top” position will necessarily be more of a “controller”, in contrast to the situation in which he would be “down”: the position obliges. Therefore, it must regulate interaction.

Since any communication is carried out regarding a particular subject, the nature of the interaction is determined by the openness or closedness of the subject position.

Openness of communication- this is the openness of a subject position in the sense of the ability to express one’s point of view on a subject and the willingness to take into account the positions of others, and vice versa, closed communication means an inability or unwillingness to disclose one's positions.

In addition to open and closed communication in its pure form, there are also mixed types:

• one of the parties tries to find out the position of the other party without disclosing its own;
• communication in which one of the interlocutors reveals all their “circumstances” to the partner, counting on help, without being interested in the intentions of the other.

Both of these types of interaction are asymmetrical, since communication is carried out from unequal positions of partners.

When choosing a position in communication, all circumstances should be taken into account: the degree of trust in the partner, the possible consequences of open communication. And at the same time, as socio-psychological research shows, the maximum effectiveness of business communication is achieved when it is open.

The behavior of the participants in the conflict includes actions aimed at the opponent. The social reality of the conflict consists of mutual reactions aimed at realizing the interests of each side and at infringing the interests of the opponent. Since the actions of opponents flow into them, arising from the previous actions of the other participant, in any conflict they acquire the nature of interaction.

A strategy of behavior in a conflict is the orientation of an individual or group towards a conflict, an orientation towards certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation.

Traditionally, conflictologists identify five main strategies of behavior in conflict situations, described by K. Thomas, although in scientific works they may have slightly different names:

1) dominance (rivalry, competition, struggle);

2) cooperation (cooperation, cooperation, integration)

3) evasion (care, ignoring)

4) adaptations (compliance)

5) compromise.

These strategies differ depending on the orientation of the conflict participants towards the realization of their own goals or towards the goals of their partner.

The course and final result often depend on what strategy the participants in the conflict choose. Strategies of evasion and adaptation are passive; they are actually aimed at preventing the conflict from developing. Therefore, psychologists are primarily interested in strategies of cooperation and competition. Those who choose the first strategy are characterized by a cooperative orientation, and those who choose competition are characterized by a competitive orientation. However, in a real conflict situation, it is possible for two such seemingly contradictory strategies to manifest simultaneously.

The approach of J. Rubin and D. Pruit is interesting. They, using the model of K. Thomas and generalizing it, identified three main strategies of behavior in conflict:

1) offensive strategy of rivalry: involves any attempts to resolve the conflict on the terms of one of the parties without taking into account the interests of the other party;

2) problem solving strategy - efforts are made to clarify the problems that the parties share, develop and accept a mutually beneficial solution;

3) strategy of concessions - one of the parties goes to reduce its claims.

These general behavioral strategies are implemented in specific tactics. Tactics (from the Greek word t ^ o - shikuyu troops) is a set of techniques for influencing an opponent, a means of implementing a strategy. The same tactics can be used within different strategies.

Of greatest interest are the tactics that a conflict participant uses when choosing a strategy of rivalry.

J. Rubin and his colleagues note that competitive tactics are not bad in themselves, but the result that the use of these tactics leads to is negative. Tactics of rivalry can be divided into light ones (those whose consequences are favorable, or at least neutral for the other side) and heavy (they lead to consequences unfavorable for the other side). Typically, competitive tactics are most often used according to the principle of increasing their consequences - from mild to severe.

Seduction tactics are behaviors that are designed to influence another by praising their virtues. This tactic is characterized by a certain psychological feature: the less interested a person is in achieving success, in the case of using this tactic, the easier it is to achieve it. This is explained by the fact that if the other party realizes that the first party's desire to make a good impression is connected with concern for its own benefits, then it will be more wary of all its attempts in this direction. The first group of “seduction” tactics is flattery. By using this tactic, the participant in the interaction hopes that it is difficult for people to treat poorly those who praise them. However, praise must be measured, otherwise it will be perceived as insincere. The next group of “seduction” tactics is “unity of views.” By expressing agreement with the statements of the other party, the first party seeks to create the impression that their positions are similar. However, when using this tactic, you need to avoid the impression that agreement is dictated by some ulterior motive, and not give the other party the impression of someone who mindlessly agrees with any point of view. The third category of "seduction" tactics is the provision of favors: people treat well someone who does something nice for them. The fourth category is self-presentation tactics: you need to present your strengths in such a way that the other side recognizes them as attractive. So, “seduction” tactics aim to force the opponent to make concessions through charm and cunning. For the successful use of these tactics, the main condition is that the other side does not suspect the one who resorts to them of self-interest.

The next type of tactics - "skuyovdzhuvannya feathers" - is used to confuse the other side, confuse it and thereby weaken its stubbornness in its reluctance to make concessions. This effect can be achieved by constructing your behavior in a manner opposite to that of your opponent. Another option is to make your opponent feel either irresponsible or incompetent. For such tactics to be successful, it is necessary, as in the case of the first group of tactics, that the opposite side does not guess about the true intentions.

The third group of tactics is hidden reproaches. Under the guise of innocent remarks regarding real facts, they are intended to offend and upset another. Strictly speaking, the one who uses such tactics is trying to make the other feel guilty. Guilt can be caused in three ways:

1) remind a person of old guilt;

2) show his minor sins as much more serious;

3) to make one feel responsible for mistakes, this side did not allow.

However, these tactics may not be effective because the other party may not notice that they are being made to feel guilty, and may experience the feeling but not be aware of its cause. The most important thing to remember is that when using the tactics of hidden reproaches, the interests that underlie the conflict are not discussed, and therefore the problem, in fact, is not resolved.

The fourth group of tactics is convincing argumentation, which consists in the fact that one of the parties - participants in the conflict - persuades the other side to reduce claims, guided by logical arguments. This tactic can be implemented in two ways:

1) one of the parties must try to convince the other that it has legitimate grounds to seek a resolution of the dispute in its favor;

2) one of the parties must convince the other that reducing claims will benefit it.

The fifth group of tactics is threats. They consist in the fact that one of the parties expresses intentions to behave in such a way as to harm the other party if it does not comply with the demands made on it. This tactic is the most common form of social influence in disputes between parties. Threats differ from promises in that they contain indications of negative consequences for the other party. Threats to use force are often much more successful than the use of force itself, and therefore they are a very effective means of influence. their effectiveness is explained by the fact that people usually try more to avoid possible losses than to receive possible rewards. Also, the side that threatens the other, in any case, wins: even if the threats are not carried out, the enemy is inclined to regard this not as weakness, but as a manifestation of humanity.

A major problem with using threat tactics is that the other party may also resort to them. If the threat is matched with a threat, this leads to increased hostility.

The last tactic is the tactic of inflexible, or positional, commitments, the essence of which is that one of the parties to the conflict will succeed in certain actions and guarantees that it will not deviate from the chosen line of behavior. Then the responsibility for the consequences of the conflict is transferred to another participant. Examples of the use of such tactics include strikes, hunger strikes, and boycotts. If used successfully, such tactics usually force the opponent to make concessions. However, the use of this tactic may involve certain risks for both parties to the conflict.

Carry out self-diagnosis:

three diagnostics in separate files;

from the workshop:

Test “Self-assessment of behavior in a conflict situation”

Instructions

We present to your attention a test that allows you to assess the characteristics of your behavior in a conflict situation.

The test contains a scale that you will use to self-assess 10 pairs of statements. Its implementation comes down to the following. You rate each statement in the left and right columns. At the same time, mark with a circle how many points the property presented in the left column manifests in you. The assessment is made on a 7-point scale. 7 points means that the assessed property is always manifested - 1 point indicates that this property is not manifested at all.

Evaluation of results

On each line (Table 1), connect the marks by points (marks in circles) and build your own graph. Deviation from the middle (number 4) to the left means a tendency to conflict, and a deviation to the right will indicate a tendency to avoid conflict.

Table 1 Key to processing the “Self-Assessment of Conflict” technique

Calculate the total number of points you marked. A score of 70 points indicates a very high degree of conflict; 60 points - high; 50 points - for pronounced conflict. A score of 11-15 indicates a tendency to avoid conflict situations.

Test “Tactics of behavior in conflict”

Instructions

The test contains two parts; “Avoiding conflict” (Table 2) and “Going ahead” (Table 3). Both parts of the test contain 10 statements. Each of them requires a “yes” or “no” answer. You will have to make your choice. For a “yes” answer you get 1 point, for a “no” answer - 0 points. With this test you can evaluate yourself as well as the person you are interested in.

Table 2. “Conflict Avoider”

Evaluation of results

♦ 8-10 points mean that your behavior shows a tendency towards conflict;

♦ 4-7 points - moderately expressed tendencies towards conflict behavior;

♦ 1-3 points - the trend is not expressed.

Table 3. “Going ahead”

Evaluation of results

♦ 8-10 points indicate a clear tendency to act ahead;

♦ 4-7 points - an indicator that there is a moderate tendency to act ahead;

♦ 1-3 points mean that the tendency to act ahead is not expressed.

Test “Assessment of behavior strategies in conflict according to the method of J. G. Scott”

Instructions

Obviously, any of the five conflict strategies you know can bring positive results if it meets the requirements of the situation. However, many of us gravitate toward the predominant use of one of the strategies, not so much in accordance with objective circumstances, but based on our own internal motivations and established habits.

In the future, you will definitely be able to expand your repertoire of strategies, but for now, try to determine your “favorite” style of behavior in conflict situations using the table by J. G. Scott. As you fill out the table, imagine your usual behavior in conflict situations over the past few years.

Rank the strategies according to the four categories provided (Table 4). To do this, place numbers sequentially (from 1 to 5) in each of the four columns. The number 1 means that the style takes first place (rank) in the category, number 5 means the last place (rank).

Table 4. Assessment of behavior strategy in conflict according to J. G. Scott

The completed table will give you a clear idea of ​​which style you use most often, which is best, which often produces the best results, and which is most comfortable for you. It can be the same style (your “favorite”) or different styles. Either result gives you something to think about if you want to make your handling of conflict more effective by developing the ability to use different styles.

Workshop 1 Professional deformations as a conflictogen

1. Conduct self-diagnosis of professionally significant qualities and severity of professional deformations of a teacher.

2. Evaluate the results obtained from the standpoint of the severity of professional deformations .

Professional deformations are destructive changes in personality under the influence of professional activities. Authoritarianism, as the most pronounced feature, quality, accentuation, is one of the common deformations of a teacher’s personality.

Authoritarianism is a socio-psychological characteristic of a person, reflecting his desire to subordinate his interaction and communication partners to his influence as much as possible. Authoritarianism is associated and correlates with such qualities as aggressiveness, inflated self-esteem and level of aspirations, a tendency to follow stereotypes, weak reflection, etc. At the behavioral level, authoritarianism is manifested in the individual’s desire to achieve a dominant position in the group at any cost, to occupy the highest possible position. position in the power structure.

Authoritarianism finds its most vivid expression in the autocratic pressure of the teacher (the leader in his social role) on the students (followers). Such a teacher strictly controls the implementation of any task, harshly interferes with what, in his opinion, is unnecessary initiative of group members, perceiving it as an act of willfulness and an encroachment on authority and dignity; subjectively evaluates the achieved results, guided by his own views and attitudes.

In the educational process, I ensure that students fully comply with my requirements and orders.

I get irritated when someone takes too much initiative.

I am confident that my assessments of student success and failure are accurate and fair.

I always require students to strictly adhere to the rules of conduct.

I am trying to develop a universal style of communication with students.

I often lose control of my emotions when students disagree with me and contradict me.

If conflicts arise in the group, I try to resolve them myself.

Students need to be constantly supervised.

I strictly punish those who violate discipline.

In a dispute I can always insist on my own.

I always take responsibility for the decisions I make.

Key to the questionnaire:

YES: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Expression levels:

Up to 4 points - low

5 - 7 points - average

8 or more - high

DIAGNOSTICS OF SOCIAL - COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

Competence is a special type of organization of knowledge regarding a certain content area, associated with the ability to make constructive decisions (both in the form of assessments, conclusions, and in the form of behavioral programs) 1.

Social-communicative competence reflects the peculiarities of the organization of knowledge regarding the system of social relations, the society in which a person lives, and interpersonal interaction. For a teacher, social and communicative competence is one of the most important components of professional competence.

– No. 6. -With. 35 - 45.

DIAGNOSTICS of SCM

Answer options and their symbols:

I completely agree with the statement -!

I agree more than not - +

I don’t know, I doubt the answer - ?

no longer agree - –

completely disagree - – –

If there is a big pause in the conversation, I often can't think of anything to save the situation.

I place a lot of importance on what others think of me.

A person with an unclear and nasal pronunciation annoys me.

I often give in to difficulties before I get down to business.

I easily lose my cool when people attack me with accusations.

I find it difficult to make friends with anyone.

Before taking a position on any issue, I try to find out the opinions of other people.

In difficult situations, inner anxiety forces me to make premature decisions.

I'm an optimist.

From time to time I lose my patience and get angry.

In society I can easily talk with people I have never met before.

If disagreements arise in my work team, I try to stay away.

I avoid communicating with contradictory, unpredictable people.

I am in a bad mood quite often.

My feelings are easily hurt.

When traveling, I almost never talk to random fellow travelers.

In controversial issues, I always express my opinion.

I don’t like it when the action is left unfinished at the end of a film or book.

If something doesn’t work out, I think: next time it will work out better.

I tend to speak louder than usual during an argument.

I can engage complete strangers in conversation.

I would rather come to terms with something than let things escalate into conflict.

It depresses me if I have to put off decisions.

I often deny myself the fulfillment of my desires in order to avoid disappointment.

Sometimes I make threats that I myself don’t take seriously.

It's easy for me to bring life into society.

I avoid criticizing my boss, although sometimes it is necessary.

I willingly leave things to chance.

I can find something good in any situation.

I often feel like a powder keg about to explode.

I don't like it when my spouse invites guests without my knowledge.

I can easily give up my plans and intentions if others have a low opinion of them.

As a rule, I adhere to the proverb: measure twice, cut once.

When they promise me something, I am afraid that they will not fulfill it.

If I get angry, I release myself by doing physical work.

I quickly make new acquaintances everywhere.

When I am unfairly accused, I would rather remain silent and agree than start defending myself.

More often than not, I find it difficult to choose just one thing out of several things or possibilities.

I am rarely in a depressed, bad mood.

It happens that I get angry with others because of some trifle.

I rarely have guests.

It's easier for me when I can join the opinion of society.

I like it when my daily routine is disrupted by unexpected events.

In business, I adhere to the proverb: courage takes cities.

When people contradict me for a long time, I lose my self-control.

I'm rarely invited to visit.

As a child, I often admitted that others were right, although I did not share their opinions.

I like to know in advance who will be at the party I'm invited to and how it will go.

I quickly capitulate if I fail at something.

I often cannot control my irritation.

With familiar people whom I have not seen for a long time, I am reluctant to speak first.

At production meetings, I am more willing to join the opinion of my superiors.

Unforeseen events often leave me confused.

Sometimes I get bored or sad when others are having fun.

In general, I am calm and not easily angered.

It’s unpleasant for me when I meet strangers at the friends I’m invited to.

If I think carefully, I am more inclined to criticize something than to accept it.

I willingly take on something, although it is known from the very beginning what the outcome will be.

My everyday life is generally interesting and entertaining.

Often I have comments that would be better to swallow.

In the diagnosis of social and communicative competence, there are five components, five scales:

Social and communicative adaptability

(flexibility - stiffness in communication). Polar characteristics: on the one hand /low scores/ - plasticity, flexibility in communication, the ability to interact with a wide variety of people, easily adapt to changing circumstances, re-evaluate events, actively find yourself and your place in them;

on the other hand /high scores/ - shyness, reticence and modesty, lack of self-confidence as an interlocutor, inability to carry on a conversation, feeling of being “extra”, constraint in communication.

Low severity of socio-communicative adaptability /high scores/ may be associated with individual psychological characteristics of the individual, in particular with introversion, which is characterized by difficulty in external communication; – low or low self-esteem, self-doubt; – low level of erudition, narrow range of interests; – lack of knowledge and skills in the field of psychological communication techniques.

Striving for agreement

(disagreement, tendency to contradict – agreement, peacefulness)

Polar characteristic: on the one hand /low scores/ – lack of fear of divergence of opinions, divergence of views; the desire to have your own point of view on every issue and defend it, adherence to principles, intractability.;

on the other hand /high scores/ - the desire to solve all problems “peacefully”, to give in, to come to an agreement; this feature can be based on goodwill, peacefulness; avoiding conflicts as too strong emotional experiences; weakness of will, indecision; orientation towards others; unwillingness to take responsibility, indifference, indifference.

Intolerance of uncertainty -

the desire to follow clear, established views on things, deeds, actions, absence of doubts, orthodoxy of thinking, unambiguous perception: positive - negative, bad - good, good - evil, “black - white”, or - or, without halftones; fear of uncertainty, surprises; inability to wait, which leads to rash and premature actions.

Tolerant - able to treat other people’s opinions, character, etc. without irritation or hostility.

Focus on avoiding failure

(optimism, self-confidence – pessimism, suspicion)

Polar characteristic: on the one hand /low scores/ – love of life, belief in oneself, one’s capabilities, cheerfulness and passion, these are traits of creative, achieving individuals, but at the same time there may be no sense of self-preservation, a reasonable level of risk is exceeded;

on the other hand /high scores/ - pessimism, distrust, fear of difficulties, lack of independence, “no matter what happens,” skepticism, disappointment, gloominess, the desire to see primarily the negative in everything and everyone.

Frustration tolerance –

absence or weakening of response to any unfavorable factor, stability in the expression of feelings; is formed in the process of personality formation and its appropriation of stable forms of emotional response to life’s difficulties; the ability to foresee a favorable way out of a frustrating situation. Outwardly it is expressed in endurance, self-control, and the ability to endure adverse influences for a long time.

Processing and interpretation of results

Each answer is given a corresponding point:

The sum of points on each scale of the questionnaire is determined; for this, a scale decoder is used:

The level of expression of each component of social and communicative competence is determined.

Scale for assessing the level of severity of the component (in points):

Up to 20 - low

21 - 30 - below average

31 - 40 - average

41 - 50 - above average

51 or more - high

Diagnostics of benevolence (according to the Campbell scale)

Test instructions

Carefully read (listen) to the pairs of judgments in the questionnaire. If you think that any judgment from a pair is correct and corresponds to your idea of ​​yourself and other people, then in the answer bank opposite the judgment number, mark the degree of your agreement with it, using the proposed scale.

If you have any questions, ask them before you start taking the test.

Test material

Choose the correct judgment

1. A person can most often be confident in other people.

   It is not safe to trust another, as he can use it for his own purposes.

Choose the correct judgment

1. People would rather help each other than insult each other.

   In our time, there is hardly a person whom you can completely trust.

Choose the correct judgment

1. The situation when a person works for others is full of danger.

   Friends and employees are the best guarantor of safety.

Choose the correct judgment

1. Faith in others is the basis for survival in this day and age.

   Trusting others is tantamount to looking for trouble.

Choose the correct judgment

1. If a friend asks for a loan, it is better to find a way to refuse him.

   The ability to help others is one of the best aspects of our lives.

Choose the correct judgment

1. “A contract is worth more than money” is still the best rule in our time.

   In our time, it is necessary to strive to threaten everyone, regardless of one’s own principles.

Choose the correct judgment

1. It is impossible to jump over yourself.

   Where there is a will, there is a result.

Choose the correct judgment

1. There is no place for friendship in business relationships.

   The main function of a business relationship is the opportunity to help another.

Key to the test

Choices reflecting a friendly attitude towards other people: 1A, 2A, 3B, 4A, 5B, 6A, 7B, 8B.

If the subject's answer matches the key, it is scored 1 point, and if it does not, it is scored 0 points. The points are summed up.

Interpretation of test results

4 points or less - low indicator of friendly attitude towards others;

4 – 8 points - average indicator of a friendly attitude towards others;

8 points and above - a high indicator of a friendly attitude towards others.

Low scores reflect emotional stability, a high level of self-control and self-regulation of emotional states, the ability to control oneself in emotional situations; composure, clear mind.

Average scores - average level of irritation, displeasure when faced with an obstacle, blocking of what you want to do or get, the ability to relieve emotional arousal through physical activity, revaluation of values, average self-control skills.

High scores – low self-control, lack of restraint, excitability, unwillingness to “control oneself,” verbal and speech incontinence.

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIENTATION OF PERSONALITY

The main obstacle to mutual understanding between teachers and students is the absolutization of role relationships - “learning-centrism”. A teacher, concerned primarily with academic performance, does not see the student’s individuality behind the grades.

Socio-psychological orientation (SPNL) represents a symptom complex of properties that express the dominant attitude of an individual towards other people, the perception of a person as a value-based and multifaceted personality.

Relationships have two aspects: they express how a person experiences and understands certain aspects of reality, and at the same time, personal relationships represent active motivations for certain actions and deeds.

The socio-psychological orientation of the personality of an engineer-teacher can be represented as a psychological new formation, the main components of which are:

socio-professional value orientations “CO”; the moral foundations of a person’s assessment of the surrounding reality and orientation in it, value orientations underlie the differentiation of objects according to their significance; for the socio-psychological orientation, the central object of the value relationship is the person himself, therefore moral values ​​are the most important;

professional and pedagogical interests of “PPI”; a dynamic complex of mental properties and states manifested in selective emotional, cognitive and volitional activity aimed at the intended profession or professional activity performed. Satisfaction of interests is manifested in increasing psychological and pedagogical competence, searching for new information, the ability to see professional problems and the desire to find solutions to them; based on the ability and desire to replenish old and acquire new knowledge, skills and abilities, a high level of professional independence is achieved;

professional installations "PU"; measure the readiness and internal predisposition of an individual for professional and pedagogical interaction with students and work colleagues; professional attitudes perform a stabilizing function and contribute to the professional stability of the teacher. A high level of expression is associated with the development of such qualities as goodwill, “effective” kindness, willingness to help, and the ability to rejoice in the successes of students and colleagues; this scale reflects the desire to creatively solve assigned problems, to look for non-standard, own ways to solve emerging problems;

professional position “PP”; reflects the teacher’s attitude to the educational process, to students, and colleagues; in the professional position, ideas about the professional ideal are manifested, influencing reactions regarding all objects and situations of professional pedagogical activity;

self-attitude, “self-acceptance” “SO”; manifests itself in an emotional and value-based attitude towards oneself, covers the perception and assessment of a person’s ideas about himself, satisfaction with professional activities and place of work, one’s successes and achievements; One of the manifestations of self-attitude is self-respect, which emotionally and meaningfully unites faith in one’s strengths, abilities, assessment of one’s capabilities to build and control one’s own life, and understanding of oneself as a multifaceted personality.

However, different people react to them completely differently. It is enough to remember your acquaintances and friends: someone proves that he is right with squeals and screams and does not even hear what his opponent is saying to him, while others, in turn, sacrifice their interests and give in in any disputes and conflicts. In this article we will look at what the Thomas test is and how to properly resolve any conflict.

Diagnosis of personality behavior

In order to determine how an individual behaves in a dispute, there is a special questionnaire. It was created by scientist K. Thomas in 1956 in order to adapt soldiers to civilian life. However, this system was so unique and useful that in 1972 it was already recognized as an intellectual product. The questionnaire is called the Thomas test and is used in both large and small companies to develop the potential of employees and improve their communication skills. Thomas identified 5 types of behavior: cooperation, competition, avoidance, compromise, adaptation. As a rule, each person chooses one or several strategies and successfully uses them throughout his life.

Two-dimensional conflict management model

The Thomas test is a technique based on a two-dimensional model of conflict management. The first dimension is assertiveness. Characterized by personal behavior based on attention only to one’s own person and ignoring the opponent. The second is the complete opposite of the first, and behavior is characterized by attention to the second side of the conflict. It is these two dimensions that the five types of behavior in conflict situations, described above and used in a technique such as the Thomas test.

Strategy of behavior in conflict situation determined by special 60 statements. They are divided into 30 pairs, and from each you must choose the option (A or B) that is most acceptable for the person being tested. Next, based on the table with the results, for each matching answer you need to give yourself 1 point in the corresponding column. The last stage in testing can be considered the calculation of the number of points for each strategy. The column with the highest number of points will indicate the model of behavior that a person uses most often in conflict situations.

Let's consider all 5 types of behavior patterns and determine which of them is the most correct.

Cooperation

The Thomas test contains 30 pairs of statements that contain responses from a person who is ready to cooperate. For example, the second statement is answer “B”: “I try to resolve the issue, taking into account not only my interests, but also the other person.” This answer is typical of an individual who is trying to come to an alternative and take into account the interests of both sides. This is the most optimal model of behavior that should be present in every team. People who are ready to cooperate always seek support from their opponent and try to find out what the interests of the other person are. You can determine that a person is behaving this way using the “Thomas test” technique. The strategy of behavior in a conflict situation “cooperation” is characterized by a calm and balanced tone, as well as peaceful dialogue. This model of behavior is aimed at a global solution to the issue that has arisen, and not at simply resolving the conflict. Moreover, if the problem is solved this way, it will no longer arise, since both sides of the conflict will be equally happy.

Rivalry

A completely opposite model of behavior is rivalry. Here a person worries only about his own interests. He is confident that the conflict can only be resolved by defeating the opponent and winning the argument. He may make the following statements: “I persistently achieve my goal,” “I strive to achieve my goal.” They are exactly what is found in the “Thomas test” method.

The types of behavior in conflict all differ from each other, but it is competition that stands out for its particular assertiveness and selfishness. It is permissible for a boss to resolve a conflict using this model of behavior when a “hard hand of a manager” is required. In family relationships, this type will bring pain and disappointment to the opponent.

Device

The Thomas psychological test helps determine a person's type of behavior in conflict situations. And if the results show that a person uses the “accommodation” model, this means that he basically avoids conflicts. It is easier for him to give in to his opponent than to argue with him and prove something.

As a rule, such people have low self-esteem and do not believe that their interests can be important. In addition, good relationships with their opponents are more important to them than resolving the dispute. Losing an argument is not a solution to the problem, but only postponing it.

Avoidance

Some people tend to put off all matters and conflicts until later. As a rule, they explain their actions in this way: “it’s easier for me to give in to someone else than to enter into conflict,” “I try to postpone the issue until later,” “I don’t take a position that could cause controversy.” These are exactly the responses of a person using the “avoidance” model in the “Thomas test” technique.

The interpretation of the results for this type of behavior is one of the simplest. A person avoids disputes and conflicts in every possible way, without giving in to his opponent. An example would be a situation where, having not received what an individual wants, he leaves and is offended. In fact, this is a way to avoid conflict and draw attention to yourself.

Compromise

The description of the Thomas test also contains another very important and frequently encountered behavior model, which is called compromise. A person is ready to make concessions, but at the same time receive something in return. Many people believe that this is the best way to resolve conflict situations, but this is not entirely true. As a result of this pattern of behavior, the main issue remains unresolved. In addition, both participants in the dispute are dependent on each other; each asks himself the question: “How can I please my opponent in order to get what I want?” As a result, a person achieves his goal by cunning, but it is unlikely that such a model resolves the conflict completely. Very often this type of behavior is used in relation to children. However, when the child understands that the parent also depends on his opinion, he begins to demand more, argue even more and eventually gets everything he wants.

Correct behavior strategy

Having considered all models of behavior, we can safely say that each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. In addition, a lot depends on the character of a person, for example, a modest, spineless model is practically not characterized by the “competition” model, but “adaptation” and “avoidance” are very close. The Thomas test, the transcript of which is presented above, helps determine what type of behavior a person most often uses, but it does not provide recommendations on choosing the best strategy.

This is explained by the fact that in each specific situation it is possible to use one or the other. In some situations it is really necessary to remain silent, and sometimes it is useful to agree and make concessions. It all depends on the subject of the dispute and the opponents. Any conflict allows people to get to know each other better, and therefore the “cooperation” strategy is considered the most optimal. In this case, both partners get what they really want, and in the process of resolving the issue, they get to know each other’s interests better. Most likely, next time the situation will be resolved much faster, since now people have already gotten to know each other well. The only problem is that it is not always possible to immediately find a solution that would suit both.

It is for this reason that you should always evaluate the importance of the current situation for yourself, and if the subject of the dispute is not too global, then it is permissible to give in to your opponent. The ability to deal with conflict is a very important quality that can be useful both in work and in family life.