Describe one of the ways to resolve conflicts - negotiation. Negotiation is the most effective method of conflict resolution. Clarification of the interests and positions of the parties

Lecture 13. Negotiations as a way to resolve conflicts.

In many studies devoted to the analysis of the negotiation process, the term "negotiations" is used to refer to a wide range of situations in which people try to discuss certain problems, agree on some actions, agree on something, resolve controversial issues. This fact indicates that the concept of "negotiations" is used not only in the usual sense - in relation to situations of official negotiations, but also to various situations of private life. And such situations can take place both within the framework of cooperation (when negotiators build new relationships) and in conflict conditions (when it is usually about the redistribution of what is available). Given the specifics of the discipline being studied, priority attention when considering negotiations is given to those aspects that are related to the processes of settlement and conflict resolution.

In a conflict situation, its participants are faced with a choice: either focus on unilateral actions (and in this case each of the parties builds its behavior independently of each other), or joint actions with the opponent (i.e. express the intention to resolve the conflict through direct negotiations or with the assistance of a third party).

features of negotiations. Compared to other ways of settling and resolving a conflict, the advantages of negotiation are as follows:

During the negotiation process, there is direct interaction between the parties;

The parties to the conflict have the opportunity to maximally control various aspects of their interaction, including independently setting the time frame and limits of the discussion, influencing the negotiation process and their outcome, determining the scope of the agreement;

Negotiations allow the parties to the conflict to develop an agreement that would satisfy each of the parties and avoid a lengthy litigation that may end in the loss of one of the parties;

The decision taken, if agreements are reached, often has an unofficial character, being a private matter of the contracting parties;

The specifics of the interaction of the parties to the conflict in the negotiations allows you to maintain confidentiality.

An important feature of negotiations is that their participants are interdependent. Therefore, making certain efforts, the parties seek to resolve the contradictions that have arisen between them. And these efforts are aimed at a joint search for a solution to the problem.

Negotiationare a process of interaction between opponents in order to reach an agreed and acceptable solution for the parties.

Typology of negotiations. Various typologies of negotiations are possible. One of the criteria for classification may be the number of participants. In this case, allocate:

1) bilateral negotiations;

2) multilateral negotiations, when more than two parties take part in the discussion.

Based on the fact of involving a third neutral party or without it, a distinction is made between:

1) direct negotiations - involve the direct interaction of the parties to the conflict;

2) indirect negotiations - involve the intervention of a third party.

Depending on the goals of the negotiators, the following types are distinguished:

1) negotiations on the extension of existing agreements - for example, the conflict has become protracted and the parties need a "breather", after which they can begin more constructive communication;

2) redistribution negotiations - indicate that one of the parties to the conflict requires changes in its favor at the expense of the other;

3) negotiations on the creation of new conditions - we are talking about the extension of the dialogue between the parties to the conflict and the conclusion of new agreements;

4) negotiations to achieve side effects - focused on solving secondary issues (distraction, clarification of positions, demonstration of peacefulness, etc.).

negotiation functions. Depending on the goals of the participants, various functions of negotiations are distinguished, analyzed in detail by M.M. Lebedeva.

1. The main function of negotiations is search for a joint solution to the problem. This is what, in fact, negotiations are underway. The complex interweaving of interests and failures in unilateral actions can push even outright enemies, whose conflict confrontation has been going on for more than a dozen years, to start the negotiation process. A striking example is the talks held in 2000 between the heads of two Korean states - North Korea and South Korea - states that have been in a state of fierce confrontation for almost half a century and separated by a concrete wall, like the Berlin one.

2. Informationalthe function is to obtain information about the interests, positions, approaches to solving the problem of the opposite side, as well as provide information about yourself. The significance of this function of negotiations is determined by the fact that it is impossible to come to a mutually acceptable solution without understanding the essence of the problem that caused the conflict, without understanding the true goals, without understanding each other's points of view. The information function can also manifest itself in the fact that one of the parties or both are oriented towards using negotiations to misinform opponents.

3. Close to the informational communicative function associated with the establishment and maintenance of links and relations between the conflicting parties.

4. An important function of negotiations is regulatory. We are talking about the regulation and coordination of the actions of the parties to the conflict. It is implemented, first of all, in those cases when the parties have reached certain agreements, and negotiations are underway on the implementation of decisions. This function also manifests itself when, in order to implement certain rather general solutions, they are specified.

5. The propagandistic function of negotiations is that their participants seek to influence public opinion in order to justify their own actions, make claims to opponents, attract allies to their side, etc.

The creation of public opinion favorable for oneself and negative for the opponent is carried out primarily through the media. An illustration of such involvement of the media can be, for example, negotiations in a situation of conflict between a construction company and an environmental organization regarding the cutting down of a forest area for the use of an area for industrial purposes. If a construction company has been able to quickly use this powerful communication channel and communicate its interpretation of the current situation to the general public, then this can strengthen the position of the construction company, despite the negative consequences of the proposed project.

The propaganda function is used especially intensively in negotiations on domestic and foreign policy issues. However, the openness of such negotiations may also reduce their effectiveness. It can be very difficult for the parties to reach agreements under pressure from public opinion, from outside influence in general, when the masses whose interests they represent "continue wearily to carry the banners of the previous struggle." Therefore, such negotiations are often conducted in a confidential setting.

6. Negotiations can also perform a "camouflage" function. This role is assigned, first of all, to negotiations in order to achieve side effects. In this case, the conflicting parties have little interest in jointly solving the problem, since they solve completely different tasks. An example is the peace negotiations between Russia and France in Tilsit in 1807, which caused discontent in both countries. However, both Alexander 1 and Napoleon considered the Tilsit agreements nothing more than a "marriage of convenience", a temporary respite before the inevitable military clash.

The “camouflage” function is most clearly realized if one of the conflicting parties seeks to calm the opponent, gain time, and create the appearance of a desire for cooperation. Yes, in XIV century, during the period of aggravation of relations with the Golden Horde, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich of Tver, who competed with Ivan Kalita, entered into negotiations with Khan Uzbek and was solemnly forgiven. And two years later, without much fuss, he was again summoned to the Horde and executed.

In general, it should be noted that any negotiations are multifunctional and involve the simultaneous implementation of several functions. But at the same time, the function of finding a joint solution should remain a priority. Otherwise, negotiations become, in the words of M. M. Lebedeva, “ quasi-negotiations».

Negotiation strategies. The conflicting parties may view negotiations in different ways: either as a continuation of the struggle by other means, or as a process of resolving the conflict, taking into account each other's interests. According to these approaches, two main strategies negotiating: 1) positional bargaining, focused on confrontational type of behavior, and 2) interest-based negotiation involving partnership type of behavior.

The choice of one or another strategy largely depends on the expected consequences of the negotiations for each of the parties, on the understanding of the success of the negotiations by their participants.

Positional bargaining

Positional bargaining is a negotiating strategy in which the parties are confrontational and argue about specific positions that should be distinguished from interests:

Positions are how the parties to the conflict understand the problem and what they want to achieve during the negotiations;

Interests are why the participants in the conflict understand the problem this way and not otherwise, and why they want to achieve what they say.

In general, positional trading is distinguished by the following features:

1) negotiators strive to achieve their own goals to the fullest extent, caring little about how satisfied the opponents will be with the outcome of the negotiations;

2) negotiations are conducted on the basis of the initially put forward extreme positions that the parties seek to defend;

3) the difference between the conflicting parties is emphasized, and the similarity, even if it exists, is rejected;

4) the actions of the participants are directed, first of all, at each other, and not at solving the problem;

5) the parties seek to hide or distort information about the essence of the problem, their true intentions and goals:

6) the prospect of failure of agreements may push the parties to a certain rapprochement and attempts to work out a compromise agreement, which does not exclude the resumption of conflict relations at the first opportunity;

7) if the conflicting parties allow the participation of a third party in the negotiations, they intend to use it to strengthen their own position;

8) as a result, an agreement is often reached that satisfies each of the parties to a lesser extent than it could be.

There are two options for positional bargaining: soft and hard. The main difference between them is that the hard style involves the desire to firmly adhere to the chosen position with possible minimal concessions, the soft style is focused on negotiating through mutual concessions in order to reach an agreement. In the course of bargaining, the choice of one of the parties of the soft style makes its position vulnerable to the adherent of the hard style, and the outcome of the negotiations is less profitable. However, on the other hand, the implementation of a hard style by each of the parties can lead to a breakdown in negotiations (and then the interests of the participants will not be satisfied at all) and an increase in the hostile nature of actions.

American researchers R. Fisher and W. Urey note the following main disadvantages of positional bargaining:

• Bargaining can lead to unreasonable agreements, i.e. e . those that, to one degree or another, do not meet the interests of the parties;
• bargaining is not effective, as during the negotiations the price of reaching agreements and the time spent on them increase, and the risk that an agreement will not be reached at all increases;
• bargaining threatens the continuation of relations between the participants in the negotiations, since they, in fact, consider each other enemies, and the struggle between them leads, at a minimum, to an increase in tension, if not to a break in relations;
• hostility can be exacerbated if more than two parties are involved in the negotiations, and the greater the number of parties involved in the negotiations, the more serious the shortcomings inherent in this strategy become.

Interest based negotiation. An alternative to positional trading is interest-based negotiation strategy. Unlike positional bargaining, which is focused on the confrontational type of behavior of the parties, negotiations based on interests are the implementation of a partnership approach. This strategy assumes the mutual desire of the parties to the conflict for positive interaction within the framework of the "win-win" model.

The main features of interest-based negotiation are described in detail by their staunch supporters R. Fischer and W. Ury:

• participants jointly analyze the problem and jointly look for options for solving it, demonstrating to the other side that they are its partner, not its adversary;
• attention is focused not on the positions, but on the interests of the conflicting parties, which involves identifying them, searching for common interests, explaining one's own interests and their significance to the opponent, recognizing the interests of the other side as part of the problem being solved;
• negotiators are focused on finding mutually beneficial options for solving the problem, which requires not narrowing the gap between positions in search of the only correct solution, but increasing the number of possible options, separating the search for options from their evaluation, and finding out which option the other side prefers:
• the conflicting parties strive to use objective criteria, which allows them to develop a reasonable agreement, and therefore they must openly discuss the problem and mutual arguments, and should not succumb to possible pressure;
• in the process of negotiation, people and controversial issues are separated, which implies a clear distinction between the relationship of opponents and the problem itself, the ability to put oneself in the opponent’s place and try to understand his point of view, harmonization of agreements with the principles of the parties, perseverance in the desire to deal with the problem and respect for people;
• the agreement reached should maximally take into account the interests of all participants in the negotiations.

Interest-based negotiations are preferable in the sense that neither of the conflicting parties gains an advantage, and the negotiators view the agreements reached as the fairest and most acceptable solution to the problem. This, in turn, makes it possible to be optimistic about the prospects for post-conflict relations, the development of which is carried out on such a solid basis. In addition, an agreement that maximizes the interests of the participants in the negotiations assumes that the parties will strive to comply with the agreements reached without any coercion.

The interest-based negotiation strategy, for all its merits, should not be absolutized, since its implementation raises certain difficulties:

1) the choice of this strategy cannot be made unilaterally. After all, its main meaning is to focus on cooperation, which can only be mutual;

2) the use of this negotiation strategy in a conflict becomes problematic because it is very difficult for the conflicting parties, once at the negotiating table, to immediately move from confrontation, confrontation or armed clashes to partnership. They need a certain amount of time to change relationships;

3) this strategy, focused on resolving the conflict within the framework of the “win-win” model, cannot be considered optimal in cases where negotiations are conducted over a limited resource claimed by the participants. In this case, mutually exclusive interests rather require a solution to the problem on the basis of a compromise, when the division of the subject of disagreement is equally perceived by the conflicting parties as the most fair solution.

When implementing positional bargaining or a strategy of conducting them based on interests in the negotiation process, we should correlate our choice with the expected results, take into account the specifics of each approach, its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, a strict distinction between these strategies is possible only within the framework of scientific research, while in the actual practice of negotiations, they can take place simultaneously. It is only a question of which strategy the negotiators are guided by to a greater extent.

The dynamics of negotiations. Negotiations are a heterogeneous process consisting of several stages, each of which differs in its tasks. The simplest and at the same time meaningful model of the negotiation process was proposed by M.M. Lebedeva in the work "You will have negotiations". In accordance with this approach, three main stages of negotiations can be distinguished:

1) preparation for negotiations;

2) negotiation process;

3) analysis of the results of negotiations and implementation of the agreements reached.

American researchers R. Fisher and S. Brown identified six elements that contribute to the formation of a favorable climate in the negotiation process:

1) rationality. It is necessary to remain calm, even if the other side shows emotions. Any lack of restraint has a destructive effect on the relationship of the parties;

2) understanding. Try to understand your opponent. Disregard for his point of view limits the possibility of reaching an agreement;

3) communication. Direct contacts can always be used to improve relations between the parties to the conflict:

4) authenticity. Avoid using false information:

5) the absence of an instructive rut. Disdainful intonations, mentoring tone, peremptory statements are interpreted as a demonstration of superiority, a manifestation of disrespect and cause irritation:

6) openness to a different point of view. Try to understand the essence of the opponent's ideas. After all, understanding the point of view of another does not mean agreeing with it. Intolerance towards the views of the opponent is a sure way to break the relationship.

In addition, the following recommendations should be considered:

1. Listening is at the heart of any negotiation. Often the parties to the conflict are sure that they will adequately understand each other without making any special efforts. However, listening is a very difficult art. There are two types of effective listening: non-reflective and reflective.

Non-reflective listening is the ability to be attentively silent, giving the opponent an opportunity to speak. This is especially important in situations of conflict. However, non-reflective listening is inappropriate if:

There is a danger that silence can be interpreted as agreement with the point of view of the opponent;

There is doubt that you correctly understood the speaker.

In these cases, one should resort to the methods of reflective listening, i.e. decipher the meaning of messages. These methods are:

• clarification - an appeal to the speaker for clarifications in the event of an ambiguity of a phrase or ambiguity of a word:
• paraphrasing - repeating a thought in its own words to check its accuracy;
• summarizing - summing up the main ideas of the speaker.
• reflection of feelings the desire to show the opponent that you understand his feelings.

2. In order to achieve the agreement of the opponent with the expressed point of view, the participants in the negotiations must persuasion. A characteristic feature of a persuasive appeal is, first of all, an appeal to the human mind and the use arguments; those. systems of statements designed to substantiate or refute an opinion. The effectiveness of persuasion largely depends on the observance of a number of principles and the possession of methods of argumentation,

Arguing your point of view, you should adhere to the following principles:

Simplicity. The arguments presented must be understandable to the opponent;

similarity of communication. The argument should not look like a monologue, but on the contrary, it implies an active reaction of the other side to the arguments presented;

visibility. Justifying your point of view, you must also use visual arguments;

Adapting arguments to the opponent's logic. Arguments should be given taking into account the individual characteristics of the negotiating partner.

Justifying your point of view or refuting the point of view of your opponent, you can use the argumentation methods described by P. Mitsich:

Fundamental method - is a statement of facts and specific information;

The contradiction method is based on revealing a contradiction in the opponent's reasoning;

The method of drawing conclusions - is based on precise argumentation, which, through partial conclusions, leads to the desired result;

Comparison method - gives brightness to reasoning, makes it more visible;

The “yes... but” method is used if the opponent focuses either only on the advantages or only on the weaknesses of the discussed solution to the problem. This method allows you to first agree with the speaker, and then object:

The method of picking up a replica - involves the ability to use the opponent's replica in order to strengthen one's own argument.

Persuading an opponent during a discussion is as important as it is not easy. And unreasonable optimism is not appropriate here. Otherwise, negotiations run the risk of turning into a clash of billiard balls that scatter in different directions without changing either shape or color.

3. An important component of effective discussion of the proposals of the parties is the ability to ask questions. This is explained by the fact that a correctly posed question allows you to clarify the point of view of the opponent, get additional information from him, activate the discussion process, direct the discussion in the right direction.

The following types of questions can be distinguished:

closed- Require "yes-no" answers. It is recommended to ask them in cases where it is necessary to expedite the receipt of consent or confirm previously reached agreements:

open- require a detailed answer. Set in those cases. when it is necessary to obtain additional information or clarify the position of the opponent:

rhetorical- a statement or denial, expressed in an interrogative form and not requiring an answer. Such questions allow you to gently persuade the opponent to the opinion of the speaker;

suggestive- contain elements of the required answer. They can be used when it is necessary to obtain confirmation of the speaker's point of view or to direct negotiations in a certain direction.

4. It is necessary to overcome stereotyped thinking in negotiations, which prevents the search for the largest possible number of options for solving the problem. To cope with this obstacle, opponents need the ability to think creatively. This quality implies the following:

The ability to abandon the stereotype;

The ability to move freely from one aspect of the issue to another;

Ability to find unexpected, unique solutions.

Paying attention to this aspect of negotiating, R. Fischer and W. Ury identify several typical mistakes that hinder the creative thinking of opponents.

1. Premature Judgment. Critical attitude and preliminary assessments narrow the field of view, limiting the number of options offered. A great many conflicts could have a better outcome if their participants did not immediately reject other people's ideas.

2. Search for the only option. Since the agreement will be based on one solution, the conflicting parties seek from the very beginning to find this one option. Thus, at the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, American politicians considered only two alternatives: either blockade Cuba, or start military operations.

3. The Belief in the Impossibility of "Growing the Pie". An obstacle to the creation of diverse options for solving the problem is the confidence of the participants in the conflict that gain for one is possible only at the expense of loss for the other. So, if a marital conflict is accompanied by a divorce, then often the former spouses consider the only alternative: either one side receives the disputed property, or the other. So, the main thing is to win as much as possible, and not to look for other approaches.

4. "The solution to their problem is their problem". Entering the path of negotiations, the conflicting parties are guided by the conclusion of an agreement (provided that we are not talking about achieving side effects). But at the same time, efforts are often concentrated mainly on ways to realize only their own interests, leaving the other side to independently take care of solving their problems.

>>>

SCIENTIFIC ASPECT No. 1 - 2013 - Samara: Publishing house of Aspect LLC, 2012. - 228p. Signed for publication on 10.04.2013. Xerox paper. The print is operational. Format 120x168 1/8. Volume 22.5 p.l.

SCIENTIFIC ASPECT No. 4 - 2012 - Samara: Publishing House of LLC "Aspect", 2012. - V.1-2. – 304 p. Signed for publication on 10.01.2013. Xerox paper. The print is operational. Format 120x168 1/8. Volume 38p.l.

>>>

Negotiations as a way to resolve a legal conflict

Ivlieva Tatyana Andreevna- student of the Department of Legal Disciplines of the Faculty of Law of the Mordovian State University. N.P. Ogaryov.

Annotation: This article discusses in detail negotiations as one of the most effective ways to resolve legal conflicts. It is explained that the main purpose of the negotiations is the peaceful settlement of the dispute. The secret of success in negotiations and the stage of preparation for them is revealed.

Keywords: Legal conflict, negotiations, ways to resolve the conflict, subjects of the dispute, main stages.

A legal conflict is any dispute that is somehow connected with the legal relations of the parties, their legal rights and obligations, and the conflict itself entails legal consequences. It is worth noting that almost every conflict can end in a legal procedure, regardless of its nature.

The variety of types of legal conflicts implies the existence of various ways to resolve them: judicial procedures, referral to an arbitrator, mediation, negotiations. Their use presupposes the observance of a certain sequence, and when moving from one method to another, it is necessary to take into account the resource capabilities of each of them.

In my opinion, the most favorable way to resolve a legal conflict is through negotiations. It allows the parties to reach an agreement peacefully, to listen to opinions and their justifications, which will improve relations between the parties to the dispute and resolve the conflict in the most comfortable and rational way.

Based on the above, we can formulate a definition. Negotiations are an effective way to quickly resolve a legal conflict without the participation of the court. Knowing that any conflict can be resolved through negotiations, the majority prefers to go to court. But still, despite this, of all forms of alternative resolution, negotiations have received the greatest use in resolving labor, family, commercial and corporate disputes.

Negotiation has a number of advantages over classical judicial resolution. They are effective only when both sides of the conflict want a solution, find a compromise between themselves.

Almost all researchers of the negotiation process identify three main stages in the negotiation process: 1) initial; 2) discussion; 3) final.

Before you start negotiations, you need to prepare them. This type of activity may include work of an organizational and substantive nature: reaching an agreement on the need for negotiations; determining the place and time of the meeting; determination of the strategy and tactics of negotiations; definition of goals and objectives of negotiations; preparation of necessary documents and materials.

Participants must clearly understand what they want to achieve during this procedure, what are the goals of its implementation. A goal is the intended result of an action that causes it. The results of negotiations will be achieved when the goals are substantiated by reality, legal reality, and not fantasies.

The conflict itself often results in an inability to communicate effectively in negotiations, an inability to understand what others think, feel and believe, and an unwillingness to act with respect for the needs, opinions and rights of others. When this happens, people may feel they have no choice but to go to court, call the police, or even act aggressively against others. Therefore, in many cases, the help of an open-minded, neutral mediator who is able to look at the situation "from the side" is useful.

Negotiations always take into account such circumstances as: 1) the subjects of confrontation; 2) motives of confrontation; 3) predictable behavior of subjects after negotiations; 4) negotiation process; 5) interaction between the negotiator and the subjects of the conflict, as well as between the subjects of the confrontation themselves.

In many ways, success in negotiations to resolve legal conflicts depends on knowledge of the legal situation. First of all, it is necessary to assess the needs and interests of the legal nature of the warring parties. But not just to collect legal information on the problem under discussion, but to analyze it, highlight the most important thing. It is important to quickly navigate the new, previously unknown information that comes in the course of a dispute.

Negotiations between the conflicting parties are one of the ways of alternative dispute resolution. They are possible with the participation of third parties. Therefore, the number of participants in the negotiations also plays a certain role. Regardless of the point of view of the parties to the conflict, the widest possible range of opinions should be taken into account.

It is far from always possible to achieve a favorable environment necessary for accepting a satisfying end to a legal conflict. Therefore, it is quite difficult to come to a unanimous decision in a rapidly changing environment.

In conclusion, we can say that, with the variety of forms of resolving a legal conflict, it is worth choosing negotiations, both direct and with the help of intermediaries. A well-trained negotiator will be able to convince the opponent to accept his point of view and resolve the conflict peacefully, which is most favorable for all parties.

Bibliography

1. Borisov N.A., Bryzhinskaya G.V. Psychology of participants in a legal conflict // Eurasian scientific journal. - 2015. - No. 29. - P. 154–156.
2. Bryzhinskaya G.V. Conditions for effective negotiation // Global scientific potential. - 2015. - No. 11(56). – S. 188–190.
3. Bryzhinsky A.A., Khudoykina T.V. General tasks of improving non-state conflict resolution in the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Mordovian University. - 2006. - No. 1. -WITH. 181–186.
4. Khudoykina T.V., Bryzhinsky A.A. Problems and prospects for the development of mediation // Legal policy and legal life. - 2011. - No. 3. - P. 109–115.
5. Khudoykina T.V. Prospects for the development of alternative resolution of legal disputes and conflicts in the regions of the Russian Federation // Regionology. - 2005. - No. 4. - P. 61–70.
6. Sheretov S.G. Negotiating: Textbook. - Almaty: Lawyer, 2008. - 92 p.

2. Negotiations as a way to resolve conflicts

Negotiations represent a broad aspect of communication, covering many areas of an individual's activity. As a method of conflict resolution, negotiations are a set of tactics aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions for the conflicting parties.

In order for negotiations to become possible, certain conditions must be met:

- the existence of interconnectedness of the parties involved in the conflict;

- the absence of a significant difference in strength among the subjects of the conflict;

- compliance of the stage of development of the conflict with the possibilities of negotiations;

– participation in the negotiations of the parties that can actually make decisions in the current situation.

Each conflict in its development goes through several stages (see Table 1), at some of them negotiations may not be accepted, as it is still too early or too late, and only aggressive response actions are possible.

It is believed that it is expedient to conduct negotiations only with those forces that have power in the current situation and can influence the outcome of the event. There are several groups whose interests are affected in the conflict:

primary groups - their personal interests are affected, they themselves participate in the conflict, but the possibility of successful negotiations does not always depend on these groups;

secondary groups - their interests are affected, but these forces do not seek to openly show their interest, their actions are hidden until a certain time. There may also be third forces that are also interested in the conflict, but even more hidden.

Properly organized negotiations go through several stages in sequence:

– preparation for the start of negotiations (before the opening of negotiations);

- preliminary choice of position (initial statements of the participants about their position in these negotiations);

- search for a mutually acceptable solution (psychological struggle, establishing the real position of opponents);

- completion (out of the crisis or negotiation impasse).

Table 1. Possibility of negotiations depending on the stage of the conflict

Stages of conflict development	Negotiation Opportunities
tension disagreement	it is too early to conduct negotiations, not all components of the conflict have been decided yet
rivalry hostility	negotiations are rational
aggressiveness	third party negotiations
war activities	Negotiations are impossible, retaliatory aggressive actions are advisable

Preparing to start negotiations. Before starting any negotiations, it is extremely important to prepare well for them: to diagnose the state of affairs, determine the strengths and weaknesses of the parties to the conflict, predict the balance of power, find out who will conduct negotiations and the interests of which group they represent.

In addition to collecting information, at this stage it is necessary to clearly formulate your goal and the possible results of participation in the negotiations:

What is the main purpose of the negotiations?

- what options are available. In reality, negotiations are carried out to achieve results for the participants between the most desirable and acceptable;

- if an agreement is not reached, how will this affect the interests of both parties;

- what is the interconnectedness of opponents and how it is expressed externally.

Procedural issues are also being worked out: where is it better to conduct negotiations; what kind of atmosphere is expected; whether a good relationship with an opponent is important in the future.

Experienced negotiators believe that the success of all activities depends on 50% of this stage being properly organized.

Table 2. Possible goals and outcomes of participation in negotiations

Goal Formulation	Possible results
Reflect our interests to the maximum extent	Our most desirable results
Consider our interests	Valid Results
Practically do not take into account our interests	Unacceptable results
Infringe on our interests	Totally unacceptable

The second stage of negotiations is the initial choice of position (official statements of the participants in the negotiations). This stage allows you to realize two goals of the participants in the negotiation process: to show your opponents that you know their interests and you take them into account, to determine the room for maneuver and try to leave as much space as possible for yourself in it.

Negotiations usually begin with a statement from both sides about their desires and interests. With the help of facts and principled arguments (for example, "objectives of the company", "general interest"), the parties try to strengthen their positions.

If negotiations are held with the participation of a mediator, then he must give each party the opportunity to speak and do everything possible so that the opponents do not interrupt each other.

In addition, the facilitator determines and manages the deterrents: the allowable time for discussion issues, the consequences of the inability to reach a compromise. Suggests ways of making decisions: simple majority, consensus. Identifies procedural issues.

There are various tactics for starting negotiations:

- manifestation of aggressiveness to put pressure on the opponent in the form of an offensive position, an attempt to suppress the opponent;

- to achieve a mutually beneficial compromise, you can use: small concessions, setting deadlines;

- to achieve a small dominance, it is possible to provide new facts; use of manipulation

- establishing positive personal relationships: creating a relaxed friendly atmosphere; facilitating informal discussions; showing interest in the successful completion of negotiations; demonstration of interdependence; the desire not to lose "one's face";

– to achieve procedural ease: search for new information; joint search for alternative solutions.

The third stage of the negotiations is to find a mutually acceptable solution, a psychological struggle.

At this stage, the parties check each other's capabilities, how realistic the requirements of each of the parties are and how their implementation will affect the interests of the other participant. Opponents present facts that are beneficial only to them, declare that they have all sorts of options. Here, various manipulations and psychological pressure on the opposite side are possible, an attempt to put pressure on the mediator, seizing the initiative in all possible ways. The goal of each of the participants is to maintain balance or a little dominance.

The task of the mediator at this stage is to see and put into action possible combinations of the interests of the participants, to contribute to the introduction of a large number of solutions, to direct the negotiations towards the search for specific proposals. In the event that the negotiations begin to take on a harsh character that offends one of the parties, the mediator must find a way out of the situation.

The fourth stage is the completion of negotiations or the exit from the impasse.

By this stage, a significant number of different proposals and options already exist, but agreement on them has not yet been reached. Time begins to run out, tension increases, some kind of decision is required. A few final concessions made by both sides could save the whole thing. But here it is important for the conflicting parties to clearly remember which concessions do not affect the achievement of their main goal, and which nullify all previous work.

On the eve of the Russia-EU summit, Sergey Naryshkin, head of the presidential administration of Russia, arrived in Chisinau on an unofficial visit, Moldavskie Vedomosti writes in an article titled "Communists took revenge on Russia." The Communists turned this visit into a scandal. Evaluations of the visit of the Russian guest varied from "Naryshkin is preparing the communists for opposition" to "the Kremlin intends to push through the coalition of PCRM and PDM." Leaving, Sergei Naryshkin said: “My short visit is connected, of course, with the task of bilateral relations between Russia and Moldova. We understand the difficult socio-economic situation in Moldova, we understand the reasons for the political crisis that led to early parliamentary elections. We see that in the center are the problems of statehood, sovereignty, the search for geopolitical orientation, and we understand that only a strong and truly capable government of Moldova is able to solve these problems, and we would like them to be solved in the context of the strategic partnership between Russia and Moldova »[†].

Solving the problem, as well as negotiating principles and negotiating positions. The concept also assumes that, except for those cases where the parties seek only a general agreement "in principle", it is always necessary to identify and address the main problems. Positional negotiations (the strategy of which is focused on a dispute about specific points or positions in resolving a conflict issue) are not discarded, but only modified to make the satisfaction of interests a motivation, goal, means and result in the case when the main thing is to achieve and support a fair a realistic and lasting solution to the conflict.

It should be noted that cooperative negotiations are not a "soft" form of negotiation, although the process is usually (though not always) more peaceful than traditional positional negotiations, which can often become destructive. Collaborative negotiations are especially beneficial when the implementation of the agreements will require the parties to take mutual responsibility and mutual action, if only to satisfy their own interests.

As for the working definition of negotiations with a collaborative mindset, this process could be roughly divided into three phases or three independent parts:

– adequate communication,

- effective education

- Responsible use of power.

These parts always interact when the conflicting parties are trying to satisfy their own core interests while simultaneously trying to satisfy the core interests of the rival party/parties by making specific proposals (often referred to as negotiating positions) on specific issues. Moreover, these activities can rightfully be called attempts to make, exchange, and fulfill certain promises, since negotiations are basically a promise-making process that leads to realistic and lasting agreements.

Thus, negotiations with an attitude towards cooperation can be a prerequisite for the participation in negotiations of specialists from the mediation service, who, knowing the main causes of conflicts, the rules of conduct in conflict situations, having practical information about deadlocks and much more, will provide real assistance to the disputing parties, while their desire to negotiate to best meet the needs of the conflicting parties.

Fig.1 Thomas-Kilmenn Grid "Conflict Resolution Styles". Let's take a closer look at these styles. Rivalry style: if the police officer is an active person, goes his own way in resolving the conflict, is capable of strong-willed decisions and is not inclined to cooperate, satisfies his interests to the detriment of the interests of others, forces others to accept their own solution to the problem, then he chooses this style. This style...

How to influence the image, therefore, ideally, conflict situations as such should not arise at all. 3.3. The emergence and methods of resolving conflicts between employees in Pushkin Confectionery. In the Pushkin Confectionery, as, of course, in any other catering enterprise in the hotel and restaurant business, a large ...

Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "SibAGS" at the Russian Academy of Public Administration

Faculty of Law

Department of Theory and History of State and Law

Test

in legal conflictology

on the topic: "Negotiations as a method of conflict resolution"

Performed:

Ryzhkova Anna Germanovna,

student of group 409.

Checked:

Lapteva Olga Ilyinichna

Novosibirsk 2007

• Introduction
• I. Conflict resolution and prevention
• 1.1 The concept of conflict
• 1.2 Forms of conflict ending
• 1.3 Prerequisites and mechanisms for conflict resolution
• II. Negotiations as a way to resolve conflicts
• 2.3 Mediation in negotiations as an effective way to resolve the conflict
• 2.4 Conditions for successful conflict resolution
• Conclusion
• List of used literature
• Introduction

Legal conflictology as a science that is capable of changing social relations with the help of practical recommendations began to be recognized not so long ago.

In the theoretical jurisprudence of the Soviet period, legal conflicts were not considered at all as an object of scientific research, since it was believed that Soviet society is a conflict-free society, and conflicts take place only in capitalist countries, "torn apart" by various contradictions and in a state of deepening crisis. The collapse of the USSR led to a fleeting "immersion" of society in an environment of real conflicts in various spheres of life (economic, political, national, etc.) V.M. Serykh, V.N. Zenkov, V.V. Glazyrin and others. Sociology of Law: Textbook / Ed. prof. V.M. Grey. M., 2004. S. 248.

The lack of serious scientific developments in the field of social and legal conflictology seriously hampered the activities of state bodies and public organizations aimed at overcoming conflict situations. At the same time, the desire to overcome the conflict situation was often explained by measures that not only did not contribute to reducing social tension, but, on the contrary, led to deepening contradictions and escalation of conflicts, transferring them to the stage of military counteraction. The most characteristic example is the beginning of hostilities in Chechnya, when government directives were essentially an expression of the personal ambitions of individual statesmen and did not contain any serious analysis of the situation, a well-thought-out strategy and tactics of federal forces. Such an "impromptu" eventually turned into unjustified human casualties, huge material damage, and a decrease in Russia's prestige in the international arena.

The purpose of this work is to study negotiations as a method of resolving conflicts as much as possible within the framework of this control work.

I. Conflict resolution and prevention 1.1 The concept of conflict

The example given in the introduction clearly shows the applied significance of scientific research in the field of conflictology. In this case, it seems appropriate to consider the conflict in two aspects:

As a form of open confrontation between the parties, in which the interests of one party are realized at the expense of infringing on the interests and causing damage to the other party;

As a purposeful activity of the state, carried out in order to prevent and suppress illegal acts, as well as the implementation of legal liability measures against offenders.

Within the framework of the second aspect, it seems appropriate to consider conflicts in the context of law enforcement. In this case, two areas of research should be distinguished:

The application of law in a number of cases is associated with state coercion aimed at infringing on the legal status of subjects and thereby causing conflicts between the subject carrying out law enforcement activities and the subject in respect of which the application of law is carried out;

The application of law acts as a means of overcoming conflict situations and resolving social contradictions that caused the conflict Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2004. .

1. 2 Forms of ending the conflict

The typology of conflicts is ambiguous, conflicts are changeable, not similar to each other. In this situation, it is difficult to point to uniform forms of ending conflicts or to look for some universal ways to resolve them.

First of all, it must be said that the end of the conflict is a broader concept than its resolution. The conflict may end, say, in the death of both sides, and this does not mean that it was thereby resolved. If the end of the conflict is understood as any end of it, termination for any reason, then by resolution we will understand only one or another positive action (decision) of the participants in the conflict or a third party that stops the confrontation by peaceful or forceful means.

Practical experience shows that, as a rule, one has to make more or less significant efforts to resolve a conflict. It would be a hopeless cause to hope for the “self-resolvability” of the conflict Verenko I.S. Conflictology, - M.: Swiss, 2006.

Of course, you can try not to notice the conflict at all, ignore it, and at best explain it. But it will develop spontaneously, aggravate, aggregate with other conflicts, and as a result, it can completely destroy the system.

The prerequisites for a successful resolution of the conflict are determined to a large extent by the capabilities of the parties and other participants, their goodwill. The main, most effective prerequisite for ending the conflict is to eliminate the objective causes that gave rise to the conflict situation. Below we will consider the main forms and methods of conflict resolution, but here we only note that since the conflict depends both on external circumstances and on the conflicting subjects themselves, its resolution is also associated with these two groups of factors.

In the domestic literature, the probable outcomes of the conflict include:

Termination of the conflict as a result of mutual reconciliation of the parties;

Ending the conflict by symmetrical resolution (both sides win or lose);

The same - by an asymmetric solution (one side wins);

The escalation of the conflict into another confrontation;

The gradual fading of the conflict.

It is easy to see that this classification combines the objective outcomes of the conflict with the subjective ways of resolving it. If we separate them, we get a slightly different species. The American researcher R. Dahl identifies three possible alternatives for completion: a dead end, the use of violence and a peaceful settlement. Otherwise, combining various options, we can say that the conflict ends with the death of one or both sides, is suspended "until better times" or receives one or another constructive resolution.

It could be said about the suspension, slowing down of the conflict for one time or another, that such a variant of the development of events cannot be called a complete end to the struggle. Nevertheless, the conflict as an open confrontation does not continue and the tension is weakening. This may be due to the weakening of the parties, with the need to accumulate forces for a new struggle. The temporary attenuation of the conflict, however, can only be visible, but does not reflect its actual development: just an "obvious" conflict can temporarily turn into a "hidden" form.

1. 3 Prerequisites and mechanisms for conflict resolution

In domestic literature, successful prerequisites for resolving conflicts include: diagnosing confrontation, including finding out its causes, motives for the behavior of the parties, etc.; implementation of situational and positional analysis (i.e. clarification of the current situation and positions of the parties); forecasting the course and consequences of the conflict (including determining the benefits and damages for each side in the event of one or another end of the conflict). It is useful that all these actions are performed not only by a third party (intermediary, authority), but also by the subjects themselves, who, after the analysis, will come closer to understanding the need to develop a common solution.

Clarification of the essence of the conflict situation, its objective understanding, adequate awareness by the parties to the conflict can serve as the basis for working out compromises, and in some cases can even eliminate the conflict if it turns out that the perception of the situation by the parties was distorted. The more precisely and rigidly the subject of disagreement is outlined, the more likely it is that the conflict will be effectively resolved.

Considering these forms and means of conflict resolution, I.A. Ilyaeva gives the following example. There was a strike at the transport company. When clarifying the causes of the conflict, it turned out that the employees of the enterprise were never asked about their needs and interests, their dissatisfaction with working conditions was driven deep.

It was enough to talk to people, listen to them carefully, and calmness was restored. In fact, we are talking about the rationalization of the interests of the participants in the conflict and the removal of emotional excitement. Of course, in this case, the elimination of the immediate causes of the conflict should not be limited to conversations, practical actions are needed to fully satisfy the needs of workers.

The use of the mentioned prerequisites for resolving the conflict leads to mechanisms for resolving it. They generally come down to two types: a) conflict resolution by the participants themselves; b) intervention by a third party. In addition, the conflict can be resolved at different stages. In some cases, its development can be stopped in the early stages, when the parties have just entered into confrontation and felt the first inconvenience and loss. In other cases, the conflict is resolved already when irreparable damage has been caused to them (loss of people, destruction of housing, destruction of property, etc.).

A common way to resolve conflicts is the intervention of certain peacekeeping forces. These forces can influence both the conflict situation itself and the circumstances supporting the conflict, as well as its participants themselves.

One of the most important rules for a successful conflict resolution is not to oppose the “right” and “wrong” sides, even if they can actually be designated in this way, but to search for a solution that, if possible, fully or at least partially satisfies the interests of both.

If we summarize the main ways to eliminate the contradictions underlying the conflict, then they can be the following:

Elimination of the object of the conflict;

Division of the object of the conflict between the parties;

Establishing a priority or other rules for the mutual use of an object;

Compensation of one of the parties for the transfer of the object to the other party;

Separation of the parties to the conflict;

The transfer of relations between the parties to another plane, which implies the identification of their common interest, etc.

Conflict resolution is, in essence, reaching an agreement on a controversial issue between the participants. In principle, and this opinion is shared by many authors, there are three main types of such an agreement: 1) an agreement resulting from the coincidence of the opinions of the parties; 2) an agreement in accordance with the legislative or moral will of an external force, 3) an agreement imposed by one of the warring parties Vitryansky V.V. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Russia // Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: Mediation and Arbitration: Proceedings of the International Conference. Moscow. May 29 - 30, 2000 M., 2004. S. 69 - 75.

It is easy to see that in the first and third cases the resolution of the conflict presupposes the mutual activity of the rivals. International and domestic political practice shows that in most cases the conflict resolution process cannot be interpreted as a unilateral imposition of the will of a stronger partner on a weaker one. And this is understandable, because if a solution is imposed, it will not last long, the conflict will resume in one form or another. Suffice it to recall the artificiality of the existing borders in a number of regions of our country. After the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of interethnic tensions in this regard, the problem of territorial delimitation of peoples immediately made itself felt in a rather unexpected way.

Conflictologists have developed a number of methods for the peaceful resolution of the conflict, including the factors necessary for this. These include, in particular, the following:

Institutional: the existence in society of mechanisms for consultations, negotiations and the search for mutually beneficial solutions, including mechanisms within the legislative, judicial and executive branches (constitutional court, arbitration, etc.);

Consensual: the existence of agreement between the conflicting parties on what should constitute an acceptable solution. In this regard, the remark of V.A. Yadov that “conflicts are more or less regulated when their participants have a common system of values. At the same time, the search for a mutually acceptable solution becomes more realistic;

Cumulative factor: the smaller it is, the higher the probability of a peaceful settlement. In other words, it is good when the conflict does not acquire new problems and participants;

Factor of historical experience, including examples of the resolution of such conflicts. Here elders and other respected persons can play an important role;

The balance of power factor: if the conflicting parties are approximately equal in terms of coercion capabilities, then they will be forced to look for ways to peacefully resolve the conflict;

Psychological: much depends on the personal characteristics of those who make decisions during the conflict.

As L. Koser wrote, the subjects of the conflict, if they understand. its futility or inappropriateness, restructure their behavior in such a way that they no longer achieve the original goal, because of which the conflict arose, but rather reduce the social tension generated by the current situation Kozer L.A. Functions of social conflict // American sociological thought. - M., 1996 ..

II. Negotiationlike a wayconflict resolution

2.1 Key concepts of negotiation theory Negotiation is a joint discussion by the conflicting parties with the possible involvement of a mediator of contentious issues in order to reach an agreement. An important advantage of negotiations over other methods of conflict resolution is that they allow the conflicting parties to develop an agreement that will satisfy each of them and will avoid lengthy court procedures. , fraught with significant material costs and the risk of losing one of the parties.

It is very important in negotiations not only to reveal the interests of the other side, but also to be clearly aware of your own. This will allow: to highlight the range of problems that need to be discussed at the negotiations, and develop ways to solve these problems; carefully prepare the argumentation of their positions, evaluate their realism and effectiveness; predict the behavior of the enemy; develop a strategy and tactics for negotiating.

A problem is an issue that is put forward for discussion in the negotiation process and the solution of which will satisfy the injured interest.

Proposals or positions contain information on how interests can be satisfied and the conflict resolved, taking into account the specific issues of the conflict.

Due to the initial position of the opponent, the opposite side is informed about the existing arguments in favor of the position submitted for negotiations. The opposing side must agree in principle with the proposed measures to resolve the conflict (method of satisfying interests) before it can consider a specific proposal relating to the negotiation issue.

The limit position is the limit of maximum concessions, that is, the least that a party can accept without sacrificing its own interests; the most that it can concede without sacrificing its own interests. The limiting position helps the party to determine when to end the discussion before the negotiation begins. The marginal position should be considered as current, as it can be changed if conditions are developed and offered to ensure that interests are met, or if new information requires its adjustment.

The purpose of conceptual agreements is to avoid (for certain reasons at the moment) specificity, so they not only allow, but also imply the use of formulations like: sincere desire; acceptable terms; with all possible determination; approximately; the parties will make every effort; as soon as possible, etc. Lyashko A.V. Forms and means of resolving legal conflicts // Law and Society: From Conflict to Consensus: St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 225.

They can be effective in cases where it is more important for the parties to reach an agreement right now, even if in a less clear and concrete form and not in essence (to relieve tension). In some situations, this may contribute to further solving the problem.

2.2 Types and structure of negotiations

Nowadays, more and more often we have to resort to negotiations. Previously, only two possibilities for negotiation were seen - to be pushed or to be tough. A mild-mannered person wants to avoid personal conflict and is willing to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. The rigid participant views any situation as a contest of wills. He wants to win, but often ends up eliciting an equally violent reaction and ruining his relationship with the other side.

But there is a method of negotiation that is designed to achieve a reasonable result in an efficient and amicable way. This method is called "principled negotiations" or "substantive negotiations". It consists in solving problems on the basis of their qualitative properties, that is, on the basis of the essence of the matter, and not bargaining over what each side can do or not.

This method involves striving to find mutual benefit wherever possible, and where interests do not coincide, insisting on a result that would be based on some fair norms, regardless of the will of each of the parties. The method of "principled negotiations" means a tough approach to the consideration of the merits of the case, but provides a soft approach to the relations between the negotiators. This method makes it possible to be fair while guarding against those who might take advantage of the other party's honesty.

The method of principled negotiation can be reduced to the following points:

The first point takes into account the fact that all people have emotions, so it is difficult for everyone to communicate with each other. It follows, therefore, that before we begin to work on the essence of the problem, it is necessary to separate the problem of people and deal with it separately. If not directly, then indirectly, negotiators must come to understand that they need to work side by side and deal with the problem, not with each other.

The second point is aimed at overcoming the shortcomings that result from focusing on the positions declared by the participants, while the goal of negotiations is to satisfy underlying interests.

The third point concerns the difficulties that arise in developing optimal solutions under pressure. Trying to make a decision in the presence of another narrows the negotiators' field of vision. The agreement should reflect some fair norms, and not depend on the naked will of each of the parties (the presence of some fair criteria).

The principled method makes it possible to more effectively reach a gradual consensus on a joint decision, without any losses.

"Horizontal negotiations" (negotiations within the team) take place between members of the team representing one of the parties to the conflict. Horizontal negotiations ensure that the interests of individual team members are identified and taken into account before negotiating with other parties. Since each team member brings different interests, points of view, motivations, opinions, priorities, etc. to the team, in order to reach a consensus between team members, it is necessary to resolve contradictions within it through negotiations.

The process of consensus building provides a sense of equality and ownership of the negotiation process, both at the individual level and at the team level. Consensus development is necessary to achieve unity within the team.

However, in negotiations, disputes within the team must be resolved in such a way as to establish a real unity that can be maintained and maintained throughout the entire period of negotiations. This requires discussion of the course of negotiations, from which follows the need for "negotiations within the team." Despite the authority of one of the team members, an authoritarian decision made by him may cause rejection among some team members. On the other hand, voting can split the team into factions. It is vital that "at the table" all team members agree with each other, and if there are disagreements between them, they should be few and insignificant Van de Flirt E., Janssen O. Intra-group conflict behavior: describing, explaining and recommending approaches // Social conflict. - No. 2. - 1997.

"Vertical negotiations" are negotiations that take place away from the main process, bilateral or multilateral negotiations. Vertical negotiations involve the participation of those team members who are present at the table, and those who are not physically present, but due to their authority, power and position, influence the direct participants in the negotiations or those to whom the latter are accountable. Vertical negotiations can be: formal and informal. However, the negotiation process is much easier with the use of mediation.

2.3 Mediation in negotiations as an effective way to resolve conflict

The mediation process involves an independent, neutral third party, a mediator, who facilitates negotiations between the parties in an informal setting and helps them find and reach an acceptable agreement. This is a voluntary process that is controlled by the parties themselves.

In turn, the mediator does not make any decisions about the parties; the parties through mediation make all decisions independently.

These decisions are usually aimed at satisfying the private interests of the parties and, as a rule, are based on a sense of justice, as it is presented to each of the parties. The main principles of mediation are: neutrality (emotionally the mediator does not join any side) and impartiality (no interest in winning one of the parties).

The mediator cannot judge and evaluate. If this happens, he is no longer a mediator, but another side, another participant in the conflict.

Neutrality and innocence are expressed in the following: the establishment of basic rules that will form the basis of procedural agreements; setting the process tone; assistance to the parties in reaching procedural agreements; maintaining correct relations between the parties; keeping the parties within the process; ensuring and maintaining the psychological satisfaction of each of the parties.

The mediator manages the process: evaluates the conflict, breaking it down into separate problems and identifying the real interests of the parties; sets the tone for negotiations and helps the parties reach procedural and substantive agreements; separates the content of the conflict from the emotions of the parties and gives the parties constructive feedback; tests the proposals of the parties for realism and feasibility; expands the resources of the parties; helps the parties to seek solutions that would meet both their own interests and the interests of the other party; assists the parties in bringing agreements to completion, ensuring that each party retains full understanding and responsibility with respect to the final agreement.

The mediator does not take responsibility for the decisions reached by the parties. He only organizes the process of Khudoykina T.V. Resolution of legal disputes and conflicts with the help of conciliation procedures // Scientific works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Issue 4. In 3 volumes. Volume 2. M., 2004. S. 79 - 82.

Recently, large companies have begun to resort to the services of a mediator - an intermediary, as a rule, who has an education in the field over which the conflict arises, thereby resolving contradictions during negotiations and resolving the conflict.

2.4 Conditions for successful conflict resolution

Giving a concession is an integral part of the negotiation process and is used for a variety of reasons, including: giving up something before it is taken away; loss reduction; demonstration of force; understanding that the opposing side is right and deserves concessions; demonstrating sincerity of intentions; way out of the impasse; the desire to push negotiations; moving on to more important issues.

Concessions can be procedural, substantive and psychological.

Concessions are used to achieve the following goals: work out a compromise; find a way out of the impasse; develop constructive solutions; find a way to “sweeten the pill”; achieve the completion of a certain stage.

Ways to Reduce Resistance to Settlement Proposals:

Continue informing the other party;

Anticipate the objections of opponents to the proposal and, even before the proposal is made, respond to these objections;

Listen carefully and objectively to the statements of the opposing side.

Lessons must be learned from the information provided by the other side;

Show with the help of documents how the proposal will satisfy the interests of the other party;

Make sure the other party understands all the "pros" of the offer

before proceeding to describe the specific details of its implementation;

Offer to inform the absent representatives of the opposing side of the value of your proposal. The results of negotiations going on at the horizontal level are once again spoken out when moving vertically with a detailed statement of all the reasons and arguments:

Do not confuse or put pressure on the opposite side, as the process can unnecessarily become confrontational;

Demonstrate the ability to "keep your word" on a settlement proposal.

Provide information that will convince the opposing party of your ability to fully comply with the agreement.

Both partners, the speaker and the listener, can manage the effectiveness of communication, and each of them can play a role both in increasing and decreasing the effectiveness of communication. Overcoming avoidance: dealing with this involves managing the attention of a partner, the audience, and one's own attention.

The first of the most effective attention-grabbing techniques is the use of a neutral phrase. Its essence boils down to the fact that at the beginning of the speech a phrase is uttered that is not directly related to the main topic, but for some reason it certainly has meaning, meaning for all those present and therefore attracts their attention.

The second method of attracting attention is the method of enticing. Its essence lies in the fact that the speaker at first pronounces something in a way that is difficult to perceive, for example, very quietly, incomprehensibly, too monotonously or illegibly. The listener has to make special efforts to at least understand something, and these efforts involve concentration of attention. As a result, the speaker lures the listener into his net. In this technique, the speaker, as it were, provokes the listener himself to apply methods of concentration of attention and then uses them.

Another important method of concentration is the establishment of eye contact between the speaker and the listener. Establishing eye contact is a technique widely used in any communication, not only in mass, but also in personal, intimate, etc. Staring at a person, we attract his attention, constantly moving away from someone's gaze, we show that we do not want to communicate.

The ability to maintain attention is associated with the awareness of the same factors that are used in attracting attention, but this time it is a struggle to ensure that the attention of another is distracted by some alien, not coming from us stimuli. The listener's attention can be distracted by any stimulus that is extraneous in relation to this interaction - a loud knock on the door, one's own thoughts off topic, etc.

The first group of techniques for maintaining attention essentially boils down to excluding all extraneous influences as much as possible, isolating oneself from them as much as possible. Therefore, this group can be called methods of isolation.

If, from the point of view of the speaker, the maximum that he can do is to isolate communication from external factors, then for the listener, the ability to isolate himself from internal factors is also relevant. Most often, interference is expressed in the fact that the interlocutor, instead of listening carefully to the speaker, is busy preparing his own remark, thinking over arguments, thinking out the interlocutor's previous thought, or simply waiting for the end of his speech to enter himself. In any of these cases, the result is the same - the listener's attention is diverted to himself, inward, he misses something, and the effectiveness of communication falls. Therefore, the technique of isolation for the listener is the skills of his own listening, the ability not to be distracted by his thoughts and not to lose information.

Another group of techniques for maintaining attention is the method of imposing a rhythm. A person's attention is constantly fluctuating, and if you do not specifically make efforts to restore it all the time, then it will inevitably slip away, switch to something else. Monotonous, monotonous presentation especially contributes to such distraction. Constantly changing the characteristics of voice and speech is the easiest way to set the desired rhythm of the conversation.

The next group of techniques is accentuation techniques. They are used in cases where it is necessary to draw the partner's attention to certain, important, from the point of view of the speaker, points in the message, situations, etc.

Emphasis techniques can be conditionally divided into direct and indirect. Direct emphasis is achieved through the use of various service phrases, the meaning of which is to attract attention, such as, for example, please pay attention, etc. etc. Indirect emphasis is achieved due to the fact that the places to which attention should be drawn stand out from the general structure of communication due to contrast - they are organized in such a way as to contrast with the surrounding background and therefore automatically attract attention.

The reliability of the source - this is actually the credibility. The more a person trusts the interlocutor, the greater his reliability. This indicator is made up of competence and objectivity, defined as disinterest - the less the listener thinks that they want to convince him, the more he trusts the speaker.

An interesting fact revealed in studies of the influence of authority is as follows. It turned out that if the listener trusts the speaker, then he perceives and remembers his conclusions very well and practically does not pay attention to the course of reasoning. If there is less trust, then he is cooler about the conclusions, but he is very attentive to the arguments and the course of reasoning. Obviously, for different purposes of communication, it is necessary to manage the listener's trust in different ways. So, when teaching, it is better to have an average authority, and when agitating - high Klementyeva A.Ya. Training "Behavior in a conflict" // Social conflict. - No. 2. - 1997.

Research has also been carried out to determine whether the message should formulate the main conclusions or leave this work for the listener. S. Hovland and W. Mendell argue that people with a high interest and a high intellectual level do not need to prompt a conclusion more efficiently - they will make it on their own, but in the case of a low level of education, conclusions are necessary.

The problem of constructing the logical structure of the message also includes the study of the comparative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation.

Summarizing the results of research on argumentation, we can say the following. A two-sided reasoned message is preferable and more effective: in educated audiences; when it is known that the audience disagrees with the communicator; when there is a possibility of counter-propaganda in the future. One-sided argumentation is better when the positions of the recipient and the communicator are similar and no further counter-propaganda is expected. Bilaterally reasoned communication in groups with a low educational level is not only ineffective, but even causes negative effects.

In communication, it is important to be able to manage the direction of thinking of partners. The effectiveness of communication essentially depends on how deeply the partners are involved in communication. And this latter is closely related to how consciously a person approaches the solution of certain issues, whether he simply listens and looks, or not only listens, but also thinks about what he hears and sees. To improve the effectiveness of communication, it is important to have the opportunity, or at least a chance to turn on and direct the interlocutor's thinking in the right direction.

In order to be understood by the interlocutor, it is necessary, if possible, to take into account the logic of the partner. To do this, it is necessary to roughly imagine positions, as well as individual and social-role characteristics, since the acceptability or unacceptability of this or that logic for a partner mainly depends on its initial orientation.

Understanding a partner, an adequate understanding of his point of view, goals, individual characteristics is the main condition for overcoming all barriers without exception, because. the more the speaker considers the characteristics of the listener, the more successful the communication will be.

Conclusion

It is very important for both negotiations and indirect negotiations that the settlement agreement provides procedural, substantive and psychological satisfaction. A high degree of dissatisfaction of one or more participants in one or all three of the above areas leads to the continuation of the conflict after its formal end, that is, after the conflict.

Therefore, post-conflict is negative behavior as a result of conscious or subconscious residual dissatisfaction (by a procedure, essentially psychological) that occurs when the conflict is considered resolved, while it was not resolved, was resolved unfairly, or was resolved in such a way that this negatively affected someone who was not originally a member.

Thus, we can conclude that the most effective way to resolve conflicts is through negotiations. The constructive possibilities of negotiations and mediation are extremely high. One of the significant advantages of this method is that its application is possible both in vertical conflicts (“vertical negotiations”: the head - a group of employees; the workforce - the administration of the enterprise), and in horizontal (“horizontal negotiations”: the head of the department - the head of the department ; group of workers - group of workers). In the event of a particularly acute conflict situation or the impossibility of negotiating on their own, mediation technology is used as an addition to the negotiation method.

However, there are also dysfunctional consequences of the negotiation process.

The negotiation method is effective within a certain corridor, beyond which the negotiation process loses its effectiveness as a method of conflict resolution and becomes a way to maintain a conflict situation. Negotiations have their own scope for positive action, but they are not always the best way to resolve a conflict. Dragging out negotiations, gaining time to concentrate resources, disguising destructive actions by negotiations, disinformation of the opponent in the negotiations - these are the negative aspects of the negotiation process. Thus, we can conclude: an effective negotiation strategy is, first of all, a strategy of agreement, search and increase of common interests and the ability to combine them in a way that will not subsequently cause a desire to violate the agreement reached. In real life, leaders of various ranks often simply lack the culture of the negotiation process, negotiation skills, and the desire to communicate with an opponent.

List of used literature

1. Verenko I.S. Conflictology, - M.: Swiss, 2006

2. Kozer L.A. Functions of social conflict // American sociological thought. - M., 1996.

3. V.M. Serykh, V.N. Zenkov, V.V. Glazyrin and others. Sociology of Law: Textbook / Ed. prof. V.M. Grey. M., 2004. S. 248

4. Khudoykina T.V. Resolution of legal disputes and conflicts with the help of conciliation procedures // Scientific works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Issue 4. In 3 volumes. Volume 2. M., 2004. S. 79 - 82

5. Vitryansky V.V. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Russia // Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: Mediation and Arbitration: Proceedings of the International Conference. Moscow. May 29 - 30, 2000 M., 2004. S. 69 - 75

6. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 2004

7. Lyashko A.V. Forms and means of resolving legal conflicts // Law and society: from conflict to consensus: St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 225

8. Klementieva A. Ya. Training "Behavior in a conflict" // Social conflict. - No. 2. - 1997

9. Van de Flirt E., Janssen O. Intra-group conflict behavior: describing, explaining and recommendatory approaches // Social conflict. - No. 2. - 1997

INTRODUCTION

1. Essence, types and functions of negotiations

1.1 Concept of negotiation

1.2 Basic principles

1.3 Features and benefits of negotiation

1.4 Types of negotiations

1.5 Negotiation functions

2. Basic Negotiation Strategies

2.1 Position trading

2.2 Interest based negotiation

3. Dynamics of the negotiation process

3.1 Preparing for negotiations

3.2 Negotiating

3.3 Analysis of the results of the negotiations

4. Negotiation tactics

4.1 Tactics in positional trading

4.2 Tactics for constructive negotiations

4.3 Tactics that are dual in nature

CONCLUSION

LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

It would hardly occur to anyone to challenge the assertion that conflicts are an eternal companion of our lives. In Latin, conflictus literally means collision. In Ozhegov's dictionary, the word "conflict" is interpreted as "collision, serious disagreement, dispute."

Negotiation is an ancient and universal means of human communication. They allow you to find agreement where interests do not coincide, opinions or views diverge. Historically, the development of negotiations went in three directions: diplomatic, trade and the resolution of contentious problems. In this paper, we will consider negotiations as a means of ending the conflict.

The relevance of this topic is due, first of all, to the fact that the fact of conflict, as an integral part of the life of every person, is generally recognized today. Today, many either seek to suppress conflicts or do not want to get involved in them. Both positions are wrong. The first position can prevent the development of necessary, useful conflicts. The second - gives the opportunity to freely develop those conflicts that harm people. Thus, it can be understood that the problem of conflict management is very relevant, and the negotiation process, in this case, requires a more detailed study.

1. Essence, types and functions of negotiations

1.1 Concept of negotiation

Negotiations are a joint discussion by the conflicting parties with the possible involvement of a mediator of contentious issues in order to reach an agreement. They act as a kind of continuation of the conflict and at the same time serve as a means of overcoming it. If negotiations are understood as a property method of conflict resolution, then they take the form of honest, open debate, calculated on mutual concessions.

Negotiations represent a broad aspect of communication, covering many areas of an individual's activity. As a method of conflict resolution, negotiations are a set of tactics aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions for the conflicting parties.

The use of negotiation, direct or mediated, to resolve conflicts is as old as the conflicts themselves. However, they became the object of extensive scientific research only in the second half of the 20th century, when special attention began to be paid to the art of negotiation. The French diplomat of the 18th century is considered the pioneer of such studies. François de Callières is the author of the first book on negotiations ("On the Way of Negotiating with Monarchs").

In a situation of conflict, its participants are faced with a choice:

1. either focus on unilateral actions (and in this case, each of the parties builds its behavior independently of each other).

2. either focus on joint actions with the opponent (express the intention to resolve the conflict through direct negotiations or with the assistance of a third party).

Negotiations are such a model for organizing interaction in conflicts and disagreements, which involves "direct" coordination of the interests of the conflicting parties through open discussions by the participants of their disagreements. Negotiation is the most universal model for conflict resolution.

1.2 Basic principles

The basic principles governing the negotiation process, in the book of B.I. Hassan "Constructive Psychology of Conflict" are formulated as follows:

the parties must show the will to reach an agreement. Negotiations cannot take place without the participants realizing their necessity. When at least one of the parties does not understand why she needs negotiations, or does not want to conduct them, this means that negotiations are practically doomed to failure, since negotiations, as a form of conflict resolution, are aimed at reconciling interests;

each party must have its own interest innegotiationsrah. Interest in negotiations means both a real need and a certain range of positions and proposals for resolving a conflict situation. For negotiations, interest is central. It is around interests that the discussion should focus. It is interest (more precisely, its satisfaction or dissatisfaction) that is a measure of the effectiveness of negotiations;

the parties must have training and negotiation skills. Negotiations are a process that has its own patterns. Therefore, without knowledge of these patterns, the parties simply cannot negotiate. With a lack of such knowledge, negotiations can be organized by a special person - an intermediary who makes up for this lack of participants;

the parties must have a resource for the implementation of agreements and joint decisions. If negotiations do not end with an agreement, and if agreements are reached but not expected to be implemented, then it is pointless to talk about the prospect of negotiations. Resources determine the "seriousness of intentions" of the parties.

1.3 Features and benefits of negotiation

Negotiations as a form of social interaction have a number of distinctive features.

Negotiations are conducted in a situation with heterogeneous interests of the parties, i.e. their interests are not absolutely identical or absolutely opposite.

A complex combination of diverse interests makes the negotiators interdependent. And the more the parties depend on each other, the more important it is for them to agree through negotiations.

The interdependence of the participants in the negotiations allows us to say that their efforts are aimed at a joint search for a solution to the problem.

So, negotiations are the process of interaction between opponents in order to reach an agreed and acceptable solution for the parties.

Compared to other ways of settling and resolving a conflict, the advantages of negotiation are as follows:

1. in the process of negotiations, there is a direct interaction of the parties;

2. the parties to the conflict have the opportunity to control various aspects of their interaction to the maximum, including independently setting the time frame and limits of the discussion, influencing the negotiation process and their outcome, and determining the scope of the agreement;

3. Negotiations allow the parties to the conflict to work out an agreement that would satisfy each of the parties and avoid a lengthy litigation that may end in the loss of one of the parties;

4. the decision taken, in case of reaching agreements, often has an unofficial character, being a private matter of the contracting parties;

5. The specifics of the interaction of the parties to the conflict in the negotiations allows you to maintain confidentiality.

1.4 Types of negotiations

Various typologies of negotiations are possible.

In the book "Conflictology" edited by Professor V.P. Ratnikov distinguish the following types of negotiations.

Depending on the quantity participants: bilateral negotiations; multilateral negotiations, when more than two parties are involved in the discussion.

Based on the fact of attraction third, neutral, side distinguish between: direct negotiations, which involve the direct interaction of the parties to the conflict; indirect negotiations involving the intervention of a third party.

Depending on the goals There are the following types of negotiators:

Negotiations on the extension of existing agreements,

Redistribution negotiations indicate that one of the parties to the conflict is demanding changes in their favor at the expense of the other;

Negotiations on the creation of new conditions, i.e. on the extension of the dialogue between the parties to the conflict and the conclusion of new agreements;

Negotiations to achieve side effects are focused on solving secondary issues (distraction, clarification of positions, demonstration of peacefulness, etc.).

Also Antsupov A.Ya., Shpilov A.I. identifies another type of negotiation depending on the goals of the participants:

normalization negotiations. They are carried out to transfer conflict relations to more constructive communication of opponents. Often they involve a third party.

In addition to the above classifications, Kozyrev G.I. offers the following:

depending on the scale of the problems being solved - internal and international;

depending on the status of the participants - negotiations on the highest level(Heads of State and Government), at a high level(for example, foreign ministers) and in the way of business; in the regular course of work(between representatives of various political parties and organizations.

1.5 Negotiation functions

Depending on the goals of the participants, various functions of negotiations are distinguished. Kurbatov describes the function of negotiations most fully. He identifies six functions of negotiation

The main function of negotiations is search for a joint solution Problems. This is what, in fact, negotiations are underway. The complex interweaving of interests and failures in unilateral actions can push even outright enemies, whose conflict confrontation has been going on for more than a dozen years, to start the negotiation process.

Informational the function is to obtain information about the interests, positions, approaches to solving the problem of the opposite side, as well as provide information about yourself. The significance of this function of negotiations is determined by the fact that it is impossible to come to a mutually acceptable solution without understanding the essence of the problem that caused the conflict, without understanding the true goals, without understanding each other's points of view. The information function can also manifest itself in the fact that one of the parties or both are oriented towards using negotiations to misinform opponents.

close to informational communicative a function associated with the establishment and maintenance of ties and relations between the conflicting parties.

An important function of negotiations is regulatory. We are talking about the regulation and coordination of the actions of the parties to the conflict. It is implemented, first of all, in cases where the parties have reached certain agreements and negotiations are underway on the implementation of decisions. This function also manifests itself when, in order to implement certain rather general solutions, they are specified.

propaganda the function of negotiations is that their participants seek to influence public opinion in order to justify their own actions, present claims to opponents, win allies over to their side, etc.

The creation of public opinion favorable for oneself and negative for the opponent is carried out primarily through the media.

The propaganda function is used especially intensively in negotiations on domestic and foreign policy issues.

Negotiations can be carried out "camouflage" function. This role is assigned, first of all, to negotiations in order to achieve side effects. In this case, the conflicting parties have little interest in jointly solving the problem, since they solve completely different tasks.

The “camouflage” function is most clearly realized if one of the conflicting parties seeks to calm the opponent, gain time, and create the appearance of a desire for cooperation.

In general, it should be noted that any negotiations multifunctional and assume the simultaneous implementation of several functions. But at the same time, the function of finding a joint solution should remain a priority.

2. Negotiation strategies

The conflicting parties may view negotiations in different ways: either as a continuation of the struggle by other means, or as a process of resolving the conflict, taking into account each other's interests. In accordance with these approaches, two main negotiating strategies are distinguished: positional bargaining, focused on confrontational type of behavior, and constructive negotiations involving partnership type of behavior. The choice of this or that strategy largely depends on the expected consequences of the negotiations for each of the parties, on the understanding of the success of the negotiations by their participants.

2.1 Position trading

Positional bargaining is a negotiating strategy in which the parties are confrontational and argue over specific positions. It is important to distinguish between positions and interests. So, positions - this is what, what the parties want to achieve in negotiations. interests, underlying positions indicate that why the parties want to achieve what they say.

In general, positional trading is distinguished by the following features:

ü negotiators strive to achieve their own goals to the fullest extent, caring little about how satisfied the opponents will be with the outcome of the negotiations;

ü negotiations are conducted on the basis of the initially put forward extreme positions that the parties seek to defend;

ü the difference between the conflicting parties is emphasized, and the similarity, even if it exists, is rejected;

ü the actions of the participants are directed, first of all, to the opposing side, and not to solving the problem;

ü the parties seek to hide or distort information about the essence of the problem, their true intentions and goals;

ü the prospect of failure of negotiations may push the parties to a certain rapprochement and attempts to work out a compromise agreement, which does not exclude the resumption of conflict relations at the first opportunity;

ü if the conflicting parties allow the participation of a third party in the negotiations, they intend to use it to strengthen their own position;

ü As a result, an agreement is often reached that satisfies each of the parties to a lesser extent than it could be.

There are two options for positional bargaining: soft and hard. The main difference between them is that hard style implies the desire to firmly adhere to the chosen position with possible minimal concessions, and soft the style is focused on negotiating through mutual concessions in order to reach an agreement.

American researchers R. Fisher and W. Urey note the following main disadvantages of positional bargaining:

ü leads to unreasonable agreements, i.e. those that, to one degree or another, do not meet the interests of the parties;

ü not effective, as the price of reaching agreements and the time spent on them increase during negotiations, as well as the risk that an agreement will not be reached at all;

ü threatens the continuation of relations between the participants in the negotiations, since they, in fact, consider each other enemies, and the struggle between them leads to at least an increase in tension, if not to a break in relations;

✓ can exacerbate the situation if more than two parties are involved in the negotiations, and the greater the number of parties involved in the negotiations, the more serious the shortcomings inherent in this strategy become.

With all these shortcomings, positional bargaining is very often used in situations of various conflicts, especially if we are talking about a one-time interaction and the parties do not seek to establish long-term relationships. This strategy can be considered acceptable in cases where there is a strong dependence on the opponent or pressure from a third party. Such situations are not uncommon in vertical and horizontal conflicts in organizations. In addition, the positive nature of bargaining is manifested in the fact that the refusal of it may mean the refusal to negotiate at all. However, when choosing a positional bargaining strategy, the conflicting parties must clearly understand what results such negotiations can lead to.

2.2 Interest based negotiation

An alternative to positional bargaining is the strategy of constructive negotiations, or interest-based negotiations. Unlike positional bargaining, which is focused on the confrontational type of behavior of the parties, constructive negotiations are the realization partnership approach.

The main features of constructive negotiations:

ü participants jointly analyze the problem and jointly look for options for solving it, demonstrating to the other side that they are its partner, not its adversary;

ü attention is focused not on the positions, but on the interests of the conflicting parties, which involves identifying them, searching for common interests, explaining one's own interests and their significance to the opponent, recognizing the interests of the other side as part of the problem being solved;

ü negotiators are focused on finding mutually beneficial options for solving the problem, which requires not narrowing the gap between positions in search of the only correct solution, but increasing the number of possible options, separating the search for options from their assessment, finding out which option the other side prefers;

ü the conflicting parties strive to use objective criteria, which allows them to develop a reasonable agreement, and therefore should openly discuss the problem and mutual arguments, should not succumb to possible pressure;

ü in the negotiation process, people and contentious issues are separated, which implies a clear distinction between the relationship of opponents and the problem itself, the ability to put oneself in the opponent’s place and try to understand his point of view, harmonization of agreements with the principles of the parties, perseverance in the desire to deal with the problem and respect for people ;

The agreement reached must take into account the interests of all participants in the negotiations.

Interest-based negotiations are preferable in the sense that neither of the conflicting parties gains an advantage, and the negotiators view the agreements reached as the fairest and most acceptable solution to the problem. This, in turn, makes it possible to be optimistic about the prospects for post-conflict relations, the development of which is carried out on such a solid basis. In addition, an agreement that maximizes the interests of the participants in the negotiations assumes that the parties will strive to comply with the agreements reached without any coercion.

The strategy of constructive negotiations, with all its advantages, should not be absolutized, since certain difficulties arise in its implementation:

The choice of this strategy cannot be made unilaterally. After all, its main meaning is to focus on cooperation, which can only be mutual;

ü The use of this negotiation strategy in a conflict becomes problematic because it is very difficult for the conflicting parties, once at the negotiating table, to immediately move from confrontation and confrontation to partnership. They need a certain amount of time to change relationships;

ü This strategy cannot be considered optimal in those cases when negotiations are conducted over a limited resource claimed by the participants. In this case, mutually exclusive interests rather require a solution to the problem on the basis of a compromise, when the division of the subject of disagreement is equally perceived by the conflicting parties as the most fair solution.

Making a choice in favor of constructive negotiations or positional bargaining, one should proceed from the expected results, take into account the specifics of each approach, its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, a strict distinction between these strategies is possible only within the framework of scientific research, while in the actual practice of negotiations, they can take place simultaneously. It is only a question of which strategy the negotiators are guided by to a greater extent.

3. Dynamics of the negotiation process

Negotiations as a complex process, heterogeneous in terms of tasks, consists of several stages: preparation for negotiations, the process of their conduct, analysis of the results, and implementation of the agreements reached. Let's consider these stages in more detail.

3.1 Preparing for negotiations

Negotiations begin long before the parties sit down at the table. In fact, they begin from the moment when one of the parties (or mediator) initiates the negotiations and the participants start preparing them. The future of the negotiations and the decisions taken at them largely depend on how the preparations are made. Preparations for the talks are being carried out in two directions: organizational and substantive.

To organizational issues preparations include: the formation of a delegation, the determination of the place and time of the meeting, the agenda of each meeting, the coordination with interested organizations of issues related to them. Of great importance is the formation of the delegation, the definition of its head, quantitative and personal composition.

In addition to organizational issues, it is very important to study the main content of the negotiations. They mean:

Analysis of the problem (alternative solutions);

Formulating a common approach to negotiations, goals, objectives and own position on them;

Identification of possible solutions;

Preparation of proposals and their argumentation;

Preparation of necessary documents and materials.

To improve the effectiveness of training, the following is possible:

Conducting economic, legal or other expertise;

Drawing up balance sheets (on a piece of paper write down different solutions, and against each of them - the possible positive and negative consequences of its adoption);

Conducting a group discussion of certain issues of negotiations using the "brainstorming" method;

Expert survey on the evaluation of solutions;

Use of computer technology for simulation modeling; identifying the degree of risk and uncertainty; selection of norms and procedures for decision-making; optimization of the decision-making process using a computer as a "third party".

3.2 Negotiating

Negotiations actually begin from the moment when the parties begin to discuss the problem. In order to navigate the situation of negotiations, it is necessary to understand well what the process of interaction is during negotiations, what stages it consists of. There are three stages of negotiation:

Clarification of interests, concepts and positions of participants;

Discussion (substantiation of one's views and proposals);

Coordination of positions and development of agreements.

At the first stage it is necessary to find out the points of view of each other and discuss them. Negotiations can be viewed as a process of removing information uncertainty by gradually clarifying each other's positions. When negotiating on controversial issues, it is proposed to use the following recommendations:

It is better to say little than too much;

Thoughts must be clearly articulated;

Short sentences (no more than 20 words) are better understood;

Speech must be phonetically accessible;

The semantic load is carried not only by words, but also by the tempo, loudness, tone and modulation of speech - a litmus test of your state, confidence, reliability of information;

Demonstrate to the interlocutor that you are listening carefully to him;

Focus on the logic of the negotiating partner's statements;

Follow the main idea, do not get distracted by the details;

There is no need to interrupt the speaker, to conduct a dialogue with his colleagues during his speech;

It is important to express understanding of the speech and an approving attitude towards the partner, without making hasty conclusions from his speeches.

Second stage negotiation process, as a rule, is aimed at realizing one's own position as much as possible. It is especially important if the parties are oriented towards solving problems through bargaining. When discussing positions, argumentation becomes essential, which usually shows what one side or another can go for and why, what concessions to agree to.

At the third stage the phases of position coordination are revealed: first, the general formula, then the detailing. Detailing is understood as the development of the final version of a ready-made solution (including any document).

Of course, the selected stages do not always follow strictly one after another. Clarifying positions, the parties can agree on issues or defend their point of view by forming special expert groups for this. At the end of the negotiations, the participants can again move on to clarify individual elements of their positions. However, in general, the logic of the negotiations should be preserved. Its violation can lead to delaying negotiations and even their failure.

3.3 Analysis of the results of the negotiations

The final period of the negotiation process is the analysis of the results of the negotiations and the implementation of the agreements reached. It is generally accepted that if the parties signed a certain document, then the negotiations were not in vain. But the existence of an agreement does not make the negotiations successful, and its absence does not always mean their failure. Subjective assessments of negotiations and their results are the most important indicator of the success of negotiations. Negotiations can be considered successful if both sides appreciate their results.

Another key indicator of the success of negotiations is degree of problem solving. Successful negotiations involve solving the problem, but participants may see how the problem is solved in different ways.

The third measure of successful negotiation is fulfillment by both parties of their obligations. The negotiations have ended, but the interaction of the parties continues. The decisions made are to be implemented. During this period, an idea is formed about the reliability of the recent opponent, about how strictly he follows the agreements.

After the completion of the negotiations, it is necessary to analyze their content and procedural side, i.e. discuss:

What contributed to the success of the negotiations;

What difficulties arose and how they were overcome;

What was not taken into account when preparing for negotiations and why;

What was the behavior of the opponent in the negotiations;

What negotiation experience can be used.

4. Negotiation tactics

In studies on the negotiation process, special attention is paid to influence on the opponent and the use of various techniques. Let us briefly dwell on the characteristics of the main tactics used in the framework of a particular negotiating strategy.

4.1 Tactics in positional trading

Techniques related to negotiations of this type are the most well-known and diverse.

"Inflated requirements". The bottom line is that the opponents begin negotiations by putting forward significantly inflated demands, which they do not expect to be met. The opponents then retreat to more real demands through a series of apparent concessions, but in doing so, extract real concessions from the other side. If the initial demand is excessively high, then it will be regarded as illegal and will not cause reciprocal concessions.

"Placing false accents in one's own position." It consists in demonstrating extreme interest in resolving some minor issue, and subsequently withdrawing the requirements under this item. This kind of action looks like a concession, which causes a reciprocal concession from the opponent.

"Waiting". It is used to force the opponent to first express his opinion, and then, depending on the information received, to formulate his own point of view.

"Salami". It is expressed in providing information to the opponent in very small portions. This ploy is used to get as much information as possible from the opponent or to drag out negotiations.

"Foot Arguments". They are used in cases where one of the participants in the negotiations has difficulty with counterarguments or wants to psychologically suppress the opponent. The essence of this technique lies in the fact that as an argument they appeal to the highest values ​​and interests, starting with statements like: “Do you understand what you are encroaching on ?!”

"Deliberate Deception" It is used either to achieve or to avoid any consequences and represents: distortion of information, communication of deliberately false information, lack of authority to make decisions on certain issues, lack of intention to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

"Making Demands Increasingly". If one of the participants in the negotiations agrees with the proposals being made, the other participant may resort to putting forward more and more new demands.

"Making demands at the last minute". It is used at the end of negotiations, when all that remains is to conclude an agreement. In this situation, one of the participants puts forward new demands, hoping that his opponent will make concessions in order to maintain what has been achieved.

"Double Interpretation". When developing the final document, one of the parties "lays" in it wording with a double meaning. Subsequently, such a trick allows you to interpret the agreement in your own interests.

"Putting pressure on the opponent." The goal is to get concessions from him and force him to agree to the proposed solution. The reception can be implemented through an indication of the possibility of terminating negotiations, a show of force, an ultimatum, a warning about consequences that are unpleasant for the opponent.

4.2 Tactics for constructive negotiations

If the use of the first group of techniques demonstrates the attitude towards the opponent as an adversary, then the second group of techniques is focused on a partner approach.

"Gradual increase in the complexity of the issues under discussion." The point is to start the discussion with the issues that cause the least disagreement, and then move on to more complex issues. The reception allows avoiding active opposition from the parties from the very beginning of the negotiations and creating a favorable atmosphere.

"Dividing the problem into separate components." The bottom line is not to try to solve the whole problem at once, but, having singled out individual aspects in it, gradually reach mutual agreement.

"Bracketing Controversial Issues". It is used if there are difficulties in reaching an agreement on the whole range of problems: controversial issues are not considered, which allows reaching partial agreements.

"One cuts, the other chooses." It is based on the principle of fair division: one is given the right to divide (pie, powers, territory, functions, etc.), and the other - to choose one of the two parts. The meaning of this technique is as follows: the first, fearing to receive a smaller share, will strive to divide as accurately as possible.

"Community Emphasis". The aspects that unite the opponents are indicated: interest in a positive result of the negotiations; interdependence of opponents; the desire to avoid further material and moral losses; the existence of a long-term relationship between the parties before the conflict.

4.3 Tactics that are dual in nature

It is possible to single out a third group of techniques that are similar in their manifestation, but have a different meaning depending on the strategy within which they are used.

"Anticipation of Objections". A negotiator who starts a discussion points out his weaknesses without waiting for his opponent to do so. The use of this technique as part of a bargain to a certain extent knocks the ground out from under the opponent's feet and makes it necessary to correct the arguments "on the go". When striving to conduct constructive negotiations, the reception signals a desire to avoid a sharp confrontation, recognizing a certain legitimacy of the opponent's claims.

"Economy of Arguments". All available arguments are not expressed at once, but in stages. If the negotiators are guided by positional bargaining, then this technique allows them to “hold” some of the arguments in order to use them in a difficult situation. In constructive negotiations, there is another version of this technique - it facilitates the perception of information, avoids ignoring one or another argument by the opponent.

"Return to the Debate". Issues already discussed are put back on the agenda. In a bargaining situation, this technique is used to delay the negotiation process and avoid acceptance of an agreement. Negotiators oriented towards a partnership approach use this technique in the event that for some of them the issue really remains unclear.

"Packaging". Several issues are proposed for consideration together (in the form of a "package"). The "package" within the framework of the auction includes both attractive and unacceptable offers for the opponent. Such a “package deal” is called a “load sale”. The party offering the "package" assumes that the opponent, who is interested in several offers, will accept the rest. In the framework of constructive negotiations, this technique has a different meaning - the "package" is focused on linking interests with a possible gain for all participants.

Block Tactics. It is used in multilateral negotiations and consists in coordinating one's actions with other participants acting as a single block. If opponents are guided by a partnership approach, then this technique allows you to first find a solution for a group of participants and thereby facilitate the search for the final solution. In positional bargaining, the technique of "block tactics" is used to combine efforts that block the realization of the interests of the opposite side.

"Leaving" (avoidance tactics). It can be expressed in the transfer of the discussion to another topic or another issue, in a request to postpone consideration of the problem. As part of positional trading, it is used to: not give the opponent accurate information; do not enter into a discussion if, for example, the position on this issue is poorly developed; reject in an indirect form an undesirable offer; drag out negotiations.

Participants in constructive negotiations use "Leaving" in cases where it is necessary: ​​to consider a proposal or agree on an issue with other persons.

The characteristics of tactical techniques used at various stages of negotiation allows us to pay attention to an important aspect that distinguishes some techniques from others. This criterion is goal, for the sake of achieving which one or another method is used. And this goal is: either in the desire to facilitate the achievement of a mutually beneficial result; or in the pursuit of a one-sided win. In the first case, the actions of the participants in the negotiations are more likely to be distinguished by sincerity and openness, and the tactics used in this case are correct. If the opponents are focused on obtaining unilateral advantages, then their actions are often hidden. The techniques that are used in this case are called differently: unacceptable, speculative, impermissible. But most of all, their essence is reflected in the term "manipulation". Manipulation can be defined as a type of psychological influence used to achieve one-sided gain through the hidden motivation of another to perform certain actions. In order to neutralize the manipulative influence, first of all, it is necessary to know the methods of such influence and to detect them in a timely manner.

CONCLUSION

So, negotiations are a way to resolve a conflict, which consists in using non-violent means and techniques to solve a problem. Negotiations are underway: on the extension of the agreements, on the normalization of relations, on redistribution, on the creation of new conditions, on the achievement of side effects. Among the functions of negotiations, the most significant are: informational, communicative, regulation and coordination of actions, control, distraction, propaganda, as well as the function of delays. In the dynamics of negotiations, there is a period of preparation (solution of organizational and substantive issues), negotiation (stages: clarification of interests and positions, discussion and coordination of positions, development of an agreement), analysis of the results of negotiations and implementation of the agreements reached. The psychological mechanisms of the negotiation process are the coordination of goals and interests, the desire for mutual trust, ensuring a balance of power and mutual control of the parties. Negotiation technology includes ways of presenting a position, principles of interaction with an opponent, and tactics.

The cultural significance of negotiations cannot be overestimated. Negotiations are important for people as a means of resolving conflicts in a peaceful and quality way.

The paper highlights the basic principles and techniques of negotiating, issues of psychological preparation and the structure of the negotiation process as a whole. It seems that negotiations have a great future as a means of resolving conflict and crisis situations, as well as a means of ensuring cooperation between various social actors. They replace force and command methods, ensuring the most harmonious development of social and economic life.

LITERATURE

1. Antsupov A.Ya., Shpilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2004. - 591C.

2. Kibanov A.Ya., Vorozheykin I.E., Zakharov D.K., Konovalova V.G. Conflictology: Textbook / ed. AND I. Kibanova. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: INFRA-M, 2006. – 302p. - (Higher education)

3. Kozyrev G.I. Conflictology: textbook / G.I. Kozyrev. - M .: ID "FORUM": INFRA-M, 2010. - 304s. - (Higher education).

4. Conflictology: a textbook for university students studying in the specialties of economics and management (060000) and humanitarian and social specialties (020000) / [V. P. Ratnikov and others]; ed. prof. V.P. Ratnikov. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: UNITI-DANA, 2008. - 511s.

5. Kurbatov V.I. Conflictology / V.I. Kurbatov. – Ed. 2nd. - Rostov n / D: Phoenix, 2007. - 445 p. - (Higher education).

6. Hassan B.I. Constructive Psychology of Conflict: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - 250 p.: ill.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.