As it so happened, that one day I have twice encountered a situation in which you could see as you start the conflict and therefore how it can be put out immediately in the Bud. Since both situations are similar, as an example, here are the most striking, which is also typical. During the consultation we discussed options for effective response in conflict situations, he said one of their disputes, where he failed to find a convenient and comfortable way to withdraw from it with dignity. The essence of the conflict: he asked 13-year old son to go to the pharmacy and buy a band-aid. Easy, would go so I bought the cheapest band-aid. However, when the child returned, in his hand was a band-aid large format is very expensive. Accordingly, the man decided to return to the pharmacy and replace the patch to any. However, in most pharmacies, the pharmacist (aka the cashier), categorically refused to exchange, citing rules. A dispute broke out that have fallen in the conflict, when one side insisted to execute the claim, and the other side refused, citing Rules that the Buyer has not seen and did not know. As there is the right thing to do?
Let's remember a bit of theory. Being in communications, we lead her, being in one of three positions. let's Call it the three-way communication.
Position I - let's call it provisionally the position of “want me". In this position there is an appeal to some resources. I want to get something or something to master.
Position II – position "the desire of the other, or what he thinks the opponent”. In this position it is proposed to look at the situation through the eyes of your opponent, to try to understand what is the interest of the other party.
Position III - position “there are rules, so it should be». This position appeals to certain rules, regulations or law.
so, if there is a dispute or a conflict, each party currently occupies one of three positions in this communication. Now let's see how the priorities were set on positions (see figure)
the chart shows that the position of the I “beats” Position III, and that in turn weaker Position II. Position I turns out to be stronger and “hits” Position II.
Demonstrate this in the example above. A man goes into a pharmacy and spoke to pharmacist , said: “I Want to replace the goods!" (position I). The pharmacist responds: “ our Rules will not allow it. We have Rules" (position III). This argument is stronger as the position of a pharmacist has priority. And here, the buyer is not, what to say and communication transformirovalsya in the conflict and the transition to the individual. TA-Ladies-SSS! There is no escape… There! There is a solution, the buyer must switch in Position II and say the following phrase: “Yes, I understand that Rules are important, BUT! make an exception for me because …..” here you can refer to certain circumstances and ask ‘get into position, put yourself in my place etc…”
what's the payoff? If the second party deems it possible to go to a meeting, then the benefit is obvious, you got yours. But even if you don't make an exception, then there will be no conflict, you will not get what you want, but the mood and inner state you will not be spoiled because you used all possible legal options. If the target lies beyond the real, there is no reason to expect that it is achievable.
Thus, if you realize that you are drawn into the conflict, determine its position at this point and go to another , higher-priority position. All you win!
Friends, if You liked the article, subscribe to my page and get new materials. Thank you for your interest !))))