I am the boss, you are...

“Divide and conquer” is a wise rule,
but “unite and direct” is even better.
Johann Goethe

Our life is filled with conflicts. Every day we face situations when we need to defend our positions and get what we want. What if in a controversial situation you have to disconnect from your emotions and make a decision to achieve a goal not only in your own interests? And this must be done every day because you are the boss? Let's figure out whether we are taking the right position and whether we know how to be effective leaders?

Any conflict is a war where each side defends its interests, being absolutely convinced of the guilt of the enemy and the need to punish him. Neither side will admit that they were wrong until peace is signed. And this is at best! An outside explanation of the “objective” situation only leads to a “cooling” of the conflict, but not to its resolution. At the same time, both sides will remain unconvinced and will accumulate forces and “weapons” for the successful resumption of hostilities.

Every day, leaders at all levels become both one of the parties to the conflict and the force resolving this conflict. The key to the success of this decision is only its managerial efficiency. That is why the manager should not forget for a minute that each employee is an individual, a professional who knows the value of his experience and his opinion. The price of the issue is the automatic deprivation of the company of an incredible amount, which determines a decrease in the psychological motivation of a professional employee. A competent leader does not sort things out - he works! His goal is to get the maximum effect from any situation. Otherwise, he may accuse himself of incompetence and consider himself simply “taking his breath away” in a heated dialogue with a subordinate.

The battlefield is the office!

In the “manager-subordinate” relationship, conflict is inherent from the very beginning. Different powers, different skills, different areas of responsibility - all this gives rise to countless clashes between hierarchical levels.
Statistical data states that 70% of all interpersonal conflicts in teams are “manager-subordinate” conflicts. Moreover, in contrast to “horizontal” relationships, they are overwhelmingly of a professional nature and arise most often on issues of ensuring the quality of activities, evaluating work results and introducing innovations.

The frequency of conflicts is associated with an increase in the intensity of communication during periods of completing the main tasks of the year, higher-level inspections, certifications, summing up, etc. At this time, about 60% of all “vertical” conflicts occur, with May and January considered particularly “acute” months, and June the most “calm”.

Relationships of direct subordination account for about 55% of all conflicts, while more Of these, it occurs between positions that are close in official position; accordingly, as the status distance increases, the frequency of conflicts decreases.

Where does conflict come from?

It is no secret that controlling the work of subordinates is much more difficult than organizing them. What is it that bosses usually don’t like about their subordinates? According to surveys, most often managers reproach employees for lack of initiative, passivity and inattention in doing their work. Also, the purely executive position of subordinates, the reluctance to improve their work, the inability to foresee a problem, their limitations and lack of ideas are not understood. Stupidity, laziness and the desire to argue on any issue irritate all leaders without exception.

But even simple questions from the manager are often perceived by the performer as distrust or criticism and already cause defensive reaction. This is how initial tension arises in relationships, which subsequently turns into conflict. A leader must always emerge victorious from this situation. He must be able to direct the energy of the brewing conflict in a positive direction and use the situation to move towards the intended goal.

“Effective” manager through the eyes of subordinates

Regardless of the reasons for conflicts, a manager must cope with his task - to prevent and constructively resolve conflicts. What distinguishes a successful leader from a loser who barely has time to patch up personnel holes, losing the best employees and recruiting the first candidates available? First of all, competent management in the established rules of hierarchical conflict. Successful organizers do not initially deny the possibility of conflict and always use it as a means for the development of the organization.

First of all, the leader must have some kind of managerial authority, to which they obey out of duty, without sabotaging or resisting. However, as a rule, we do not submit to those bosses in whom we feel managerial weakness. It manifests itself in the behavior of the leader himself: can he organize himself, does word differ from deeds, how does he behave with his immediate superiors, etc. And as soon as such shortcomings of the leader in the eyes of their subordinates gain a “critical mass”, the performers will be able to relax and allow themselves a lot, as if “mirroring” the unprofessionalism of their leader.

According to surveys, subordinates name the main shortcomings of managers as the inability to clearly set goals, reluctance to delve into problems and consider other people’s points of view, excessive authoritarianism, suspicion and detachment from the team. Moreover, the higher the position of the subordinate, the more scrupulous he is about the personal characteristics of the boss. A negative reaction is caused by the boss’s incompetence and suspicion, as well as his lack of taste. On the other hand, this category of employees is more loyal to being demanding and meticulous, in contrast to line personnel.
Another serious “fault” of managers in the eyes of subordinates is the manifestation of rudeness in conflicts. Subordinates often describe a conflict as the following situation: the manager calls them into his office and begins to express his indignation. At the same time, the subordinate does not have the right to express his opinion, much less point out to the manager that communication is incorrect. In extreme cases, he may try to justify himself by blaming someone else. Research shows that this picture occurs in 30% of conflicts.

Of course, the reasons for low authority can be serious problems that do not depend on the personal qualities of the leader. For example, if he is not sufficiently provided with everything necessary to implement management decisions for objective reasons or has recently entered into a leadership position and is experiencing difficulty in social and professional adaptation in the role of a manager. But even such reasons will not justify the boss to higher management if conflicts that arise in his department cause problems for the entire business process.

10 rules for an “effective” leader

A necessary condition for the “health” of an organization is the corporate culture created by its leaders. How should a leader behave correctly in resolving conflict situations? Let's try to briefly formulate the recommendations:

1. Take time and listen to your subordinate, because he is the one who has the necessary information, which may not be enough to make the right decision. Try to understand the concerns of your subordinate: a reasonable attitude towards his interests makes the subordinate less conflicting and compromising.

2. Express your criticism calmly and briefly, directing it at specific actions, not at a person.

3. Justify your demands on your subordinate with convincing arguments and legal norms.

4. Get your subordinate interested in your vision of resolving the conflict. You can influence his motivation by explaining his mistakes, persuasion, some concessions, etc.

5. Act confidently and express complete control of yourself and the situation. Maintain a professional distance, avoid familiarity, rudeness and raised tones in conversation. Increased emotionality reduces the degree of objectivity and correctness of opponents.

6. Do not abuse your official position by increasing the workload, creating difficulties, applying disciplinary sanctions, etc. This will not only embitter the subordinate and make it difficult to resolve the conflict, but will also allow him to point out your bias and unprofessionalism.

7. Do not escalate the conflict unless absolutely necessary; this worsens interpersonal relationships and increases the level of negative emotions.

8. Use the support of senior management or the team only for the purpose of resolving a contradiction, and not to increase pressure on a subordinate.

9. Don’t prolong the conflict. Over time, the likelihood of resolving the conflict decreases due to the transition of the problem to the emotional sphere. The maximum result can be achieved at the very beginning of the process or during a recession. The most difficult solution to a conflict is during a period of aggravation and, even less likely, during a period of repeated aggravation. In addition, we must not forget that the time spent on resolving the conflict can be safely deleted from the work schedule.

10. Don't be afraid to compromise, especially if you're not sure you're right. Find the courage to admit this to yourself, and if necessary, apologize to your subordinate without unnecessary witnesses.

Remember: no matter how the situation develops, you bear great responsibility in it. The main qualities of an “effective” leader are not to hide their “head in the sand”, to be fair, demanding of themselves and their subordinates, to solve problems, and not just aggravate relationships. You should not look for those to blame, but rather find out and eliminate the cause of the conflict. And then, thanks to your competent actions, discord in the company can disappear forever, and the psychological climate in the office will become another factor in motivating your subordinates.

You-take one of the sentences below the expressions and on its basis on-pi-shi-those mini-so-chi-no-nie .

Form, at your own discretion, one or more basic ideas for the theme of the author and reveal - those of her (them) based on the society's knowledge.

To reveal the form(s) of your basic idea(s) at the time of judgment and you, using society-scientific knowledge (corresponding to the concepts, theo-re-ti- Czech words).

For illustrating the forms of your basic idea(s), theo-re-ti-che-lo-zhe- nii, judgments and conclusions with at least two social facts/examples from different sources -no-kov (public life (including social media), personal social experience (including including books that have been read, films that have been watched), from various academic subjects.

Each given fact/example must be formulated in detail and confirm the designated main idea, theo -re-ti-che-lo-s-the-same, reasoning or conclusion/ be clearly connected with them. According to their content, examples should not be of the same type (they should not resemble each other).

29.1 Philosophy:“All our theories are nothing more than a generalization of experience, based on observed facts” (V.A. Am-bar-tsu-myan).

29.2 Economy:“Demand and supply are a process of mutual assistance in co-ordination” (P.T. Heine).

29.3 So-tsio-logia, so-ci-al-naya psy-ho-lo-gy:“Na-cha-lo personal-no-sti na-stu-pa-et-much later than na-cha-lo in-di-vid-da” (B.G. Ana-nyev).

29.4 Political science:““Once-de-lay and rule” is a wise right, but “unite and rule” is even better” (I.V. Goethe).

29.5 Jurisprudence:“The law does not know verbal crimes, does not know the differences in the circle of persons among whom its violation is committed. He is equally strict and equally merciful towards everyone” (A.F. Koni).

Explanation.

1. The task is alternative, that is, you must choose one statement out of five write out the quotation and its number, before you start writing your mini-essay. What to pay attention to:

1.1. Social studies section, in the context of which the statement is given. The sphere in which the arguments are given, the social science concepts used, etc. depends on it.

1.2. The meaning of the statement must be completely understandable to the student. If it is revealed incorrectly, the mini-essay is not read for K1 (the first criterion), 0 points are given and the mini-essay itself is not evaluated.

2. Structure of a mini-essay:

2.1. It is necessary to explain the meaning of the statement. In this part, it is necessary to highlight the key idea or ideas of the statement. (K1, max. 1 point) Not allowed: substitution of the meaning of a statement with reasoning of a general nature (“home preparation”) that does not reflect the specifics of the proposed statement; a direct retelling, paraphrasing of a given statement, or a sequential explanation of each word in a statement without explaining the meaning of the statement as a whole.

2.2. Required for theoretical level reveal every aspect of the main idea or ideas of the author's statement. Required items:

2.2.1. Using key words for the main idea or ideas of a social science statement concepts, their explanation, as well as theoretical provisions that reveal the idea or ideas of the statement. Important so that they correspond to the section of social science in which the statement is given. (K2, max. 2 points).

2.2.2. In the context of at least one highlighted idea based on the correct explanation(s) of the key concept(s), theoretical provisions, interconnected consistent and consistent reasoning is presented, on the basis of which a reasonable and reliable statement is formulated from the point of view of scientific social science conclusion (K3, max. 1 point).

2.3. It is necessary to bring at least two examples from different fields, which will support the theoretical argument. (K4, max 2 points) Required elements:

2.3.1. Use examples from different sources. Facts of public life (including media reports), personal social experience (including books read, films watched), materials educational subjects(history, geography, etc.). Examples from different academic subjects are considered as examples from various sources.

2.3.2. Each example should reflect in practice the theoretical positions of the arguments.

3. When writing a mini-essay, it is important to remember:

3.1. Internal inconsistency must be avoided in the structure.

3.2. Each part should be organically included in the structure of the mini-essay (the argumentation corresponds to the aspects of the problem identified in the explanation of the statement, and actual examples illustrate theoretical arguments).

3.3. Ordinary language should be avoided.

3.4. Rough behavior must be avoided grammatical errors, especially in social science and other subject terminology.

3.5. The presence of errors that are erroneous, from the point of view of scientific social science, as well as semantic and factual errors, leads to a decrease in scores for K2 and/or K4, depending on the nature of the error.

HOW TO WRITE AN ESSAY CORRECTLY

An essay is a literary form, a short prose text, a sketch. I would say that this is a mini-essay on a specific topic. This is your view on this issue.

When preparing for the Unified State Exam, we will be interested in essays as one of the tasks for social studies. This is task 29. In CMMs it might look like this...

29. Choose one of the statements below, reveal its meaning, identifying different aspects of the problem posed by the author (the topic raised); formulate your attitude towards the position taken by the author; justify this relationship.

When expressing your thoughts about various aspects of the problem raised (the designated topic), when arguing your point of view, use the knowledge gained from studying the social studies course, relevant concepts, as well as facts of social life and your own life experience.

29.1 Philosophy “All our theories are nothing more than a generalization of experience, observable factors.” (V. A. Ambartsumyan)

29.2 Social Psychology “The beginning of personality occurs much later than the beginning of the individual.” (B.G. Ananyev)

29.3 Economics “Supply and demand are a process of mutual adaptation and coordination” (P. T. Heine)

29.4 Sociology “A role is not a personality, but... an image behind which it is hidden” (A.N. Leontyev)

29.5 Political Science “Divide and conquer” is a wise rule, but “unite and direct” is even better." (I. V. Goethe)

We are lucky that we can choose a topic from 5 proposed options. Always choose a topic that is interesting. Then you can write a lot of useful things.

To write an essay, you will need a draft. To prepare yourself at home, you need to have a separate notebook for essays.

1. We rewrite the selected author’s statement in large letters.

2. Divide the sheet into 2 unequal parts. In a large part, you will write the main text, and in a small part you will need to write down the thoughts that arise. Sort of, make very wide margins.

* It often happens that in the process of writing an essay, smart thoughts come up that we cannot use at the moment, but we will need them to conclude the essay. And then we begin frantically looking for a piece of paper where to put it all down. Therefore, wide margins are a good solution.

3. Essay structure:

Part I - introduction

Part II - main part

Part III - conclusion

*This way you should have 3 large paragraphs.

4. Introduction.

You can start with the words: “I agree (disagree) with this statement because...” and write the same thing as in the topic, but in different words.

*Example. Theme: “One is born an individual, one becomes an individual, an individuality

remain" (A.G. Asmolov)

"I agree with this statement, because a person is born as a biological

the creature then begins to show its abilities, develops in society, and

individual qualities that are unique to him remain with him for the rest of his life."

5. Main part.

As an option for the beginning of the main part: “From a social studies course (political science, history, sociology, economics, and so on), we know that... (terms)”

*Each statement contains terms that will be important to us. Let's look at the topic I mentioned above. Here we see the terms: “individual”, “personality”, “individuality”. So you define these concepts.

Then you can use the algorithm:

THESIS - ARGUMENT - ARGUMENT

THESIS - ARGUMENT - ARGUMENT

where the thesis is a statement, argument is the proof of a statement.

*Example: Thesis: “A person is born an individual because...” Arguments: “does not yet have socially significant qualities, he acquires them in the process of life”

The essay is encouraged to use examples from personal experience. Your experience is an excellent argument. You can write a situation that matches the topic that happened to you.

It is very good if you write information about the author. I will try to soon post a list of personalities whose statements are often found in C9. A bunch of information about the author, topic and your essay will be important here.

IMPORTANT! The essay must be written on your behalf. This is your view of the issue. Therefore, you can use the phrases: “in my opinion”, “in my opinion”, “I think”, “I believe”, “I’ll try to analyze this situation” and so on.

The essay must be written emotionally!

6. Conclusion.

This is the most important part of the essay. This is your finest hour! Here you must express the most important and powerful thought. If you have written it before, then put it aside for a “snack” or, as I call it, “dessert”

“Dessert” is the global, grotesque thought of the entire essay.

*Psychologists have proven that a person remembers the first phrase and the last. We will play on this fact.

"Deser" must be positive. If I read an essay and at the end a student writes grotesquely like “we are all going to die,” I want to cry. Therefore, it is better to wrap even a problematic topic in a rainbow wrapper.

You can use the following template phrases: “so let’s develop our economy (culture, education, healthcare, social programs) for the benefit of all humanity!!!”

7. Essay length.

It is believed that an essay should take 2.5 notebook pages, but in our case it is 1.5 pages of form No. 2

TIP: when preparing for the Unified State Exam, start writing in a special notebook designed for essays. Write an essay of 2.5 pages. Better yet, you will learn to write a lot, and then you will be able to correct your essay. On the Unified State Exam you will be able to cross out unnecessary thoughts.

That's it... Good luck!

If you are interested, you can write an essay on this topic yourself. I would really like to see your work. They can be sent to me by email.

I remind you email: [email protected]

SAMPLE WRITING AN ESSAY IN SOCIAL STUDIES.

29. "CULTURE IS A CHOICE!" (D. DIBROV)

I agree with this statement, because culture always puts a person before a choice. It is diverse. The thousand-year history of mankind has created material and spiritual values ​​that are passed on from generation to generation. Along with this, new discoveries arise, new masterpieces are created.

The author of this statement is Dmitry Dibrov, a well-known critic, musician, TV presenter in elite circles, and simply a cultured and educated person. I think he knows for sure that people’s achievements are diverse, they have an alternative. And where there is an alternative, there is a choice. I will also try to prove that culture for me is a choice.

From the social studies course we know that there are many meanings of the term “culture”. Let us note here the original meaning of this concept. Even ancient Roman The politician and philosopher Cicero wrote that “culture means cultivation.” Therefore, by his choice, a person cultivates in himself best qualities, becoming cultural. But in order to be able to choose, it is necessary to study a lot, to learn a lot.

There are cases in history when culture was not a choice, since there was no access to the diversity of its manifestations. Take, for example, the Soviet period of our history, when a totalitarian regime ruled. The Communist Party imposed on the Soviet people not only a political system, but also common cultural values. And dissent was persecuted by the state. Let us remember the repressions of the 30-50s of the 20th century and the emigration of many outstanding personalities, such as Rostropovich, Solzhenitsyn, Vishnevskaya and others.

Currently, Russians have a choice. Television presents a variety of TV programs. You can watch “soap operas,” which are erzaz culture, or you can watch popular science films and documentaries. Television channels present a variety of entertainment programs related to elements of mass culture.

My attitude towards culture is ambiguous. I'm an "omnivore". I am interested in any type of art, depending on my mood. I can read poetry by V. Vysotsky or Japanese haiku, listen to the British group "Muse" or a Bach fugue, admire the brush of the great Caravaggio or think about S. Dali's painting "A Dream Inspired by the Flight of a Bee a Second Before Waking."

I choose this variety! I'm happy that I have this choice!

Every person should have this choice in order to better understand themselves and the world around them, using the experience of world artistic culture.

Thus, culture is always a choice! A person must find that valuable thing that is necessary to achieve inner harmony, taken from the spreading branches of the great tree of culture!

“Divide and conquer” is a wise rule,

but “unite and direct” is even better.

USA in the 1860s – political example: Abraham Lincoln (pictured left) is rightfully considered the most outstanding US president. During his presidency, he abolished slavery, which made the United States a modern and dynamic country and opened up new horizons for development, centralized federal power, and led anti-slavery forces to victory over the Confederacy of the Southern States in civil war 1861-65. And he would probably have done a lot more useful things if it had not been for his fatal wound on April 14, 1865 from a point-blank shot fired from a pistol by actor John Booth, who sympathized with the southerners. Meanwhile, Lincoln narrowly lost his first presidential election in 1860. The Republican Party, which he represented, was at that time a minority party - its leader Abraham Lincoln was supported by only 40% of the population in the presidential race of 1860. And Lincoln might not have become president if the far-sighted policies of the mid-60s had not split the Democrats into two warring factions. Not only an excellent orator, but also a master of political strategy, Lincoln divided and conquered.

The main issue dividing Republicans and Democrats at that time was the attitude towards slavery. The Republican Party was strongly opposed to slavery throughout the country. The Democratic Party, supported by an absolute majority in the slave-holding southern states and a minority in the northern, treated this issue more moderately and was the party of the majority. Its leader, Stephen Douglas (pictured below right), a senator from Illinois, believed that the inhabitants of each state, through a plebiscite, had the right to decide for themselves to prohibit or maintain slavery in their state (the doctrine of popular sovereignty). Most Democrats agreed with him, but not the radical slaveholders of the South. Nevertheless, by pursuing an uncertain policy (a fairly successful political strategy, the main goal of which was to attract adherents of all opinions to his side), he retained the support of the entire party.

The main political move that secured Lincoln's presidency in 1860 was forcing Douglas to clearly take his position on the issue of slavery. During the elections to the Senate from the state of Illinois, Lincoln challenged Douglas to a debate and forced him to take a clear position, which gave the residents of the states the right to decide the issue of slavery for themselves. This position ensured Douglas's victory in the election to the Senate from the northern anti-slavery state of Illinois, but alienated from him all adherents from the slave-owning South, who considered this position a “treason” to their political interests. At the pre-election national convention of the Democratic Party on April 23, 1860, delegations from the southern states issued an ultimatum demanding that the entire party adopt a pro-slavery platform. Douglas, forced to be consistent after the debates with Lincoln, again spoke out for the doctrine of popular sovereignty. In response, on April 30, the state delegations of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas and Texas left the convention, and the next day they were joined by delegates from Georgia. They, having gathered on June 18 in Baltimore, proclaimed the current Vice President John Breckenridge (pictured above right), a native of Kentucky and an apologist for slavery, as a presidential candidate.

Thus, Lincoln's visionary strategy brought him success. Stephen Douglas was able to win only in the northern state of New Jersey, completely losing to Breckenridge in the southern states, and Lincoln, having gained 39.8% of the vote, entered the White House and History as the 16th President of the United States. Meanwhile, in total, more voters voted for Douglas and Breckenridge (29.5% for Stephen Douglas and 18.1% for John Breckenridge) and if the Democratic Party had not been divided into northern and southern factions, Lincoln would not have won the election.

The splitting of major religions into branches is a religious example: I have no doubt that the goal of all religions of any denomination is the well-being of man and society, ethical, moral and economic. It would seem that what could be more logical than the unification of societies with different religions around these common goals? Unfortunately, the problem turns out to be precisely that each denomination sees its own path to prosperity. This applies to both the world's largest religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism) and their subdivisions. The fragmentation of the main religions into branches is impressive in its scope. Christianity is split into the Catholic Church (the independent Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), Protestantism (divided into Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Seventh-day Adventists, Anglicans, Pentecostals and others) and Orthodox Church(many independent local patriarchates fighting each other for spheres of influence), each of which claims to be independent and right. There are also many movements in Islam: Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Kharijites, Ismailis, Wahhabis, Murids, Salafis, 4 madhhabs, many sects, jamaats and tariqats. Each branch and its subdivisions differ from each other in their views on essential issues of theology, and in their paths to “general welfare.”

The worst of the evils is that, forgetting about the general goals of prosperity and even many commandments, interpreting their sacred books in their own way and egging on fanatics, religions attacked with arms in their hands in the struggle for world domination as “non-believers” (numerous crusades and jihads, modern terrorism and the fight against it), and on those who broke away from their own branch (Huguenot wars, St. Bartholomew's Night, persecution of Baptists in England, wars of the caliphate with the Kharijites, the murder by the Kharijite of the 4th and last caliph, nephew and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad ( s.a.s.), Khazreti Ali, historical and modern censure of the Wahhabis). One can argue for a long time about who benefited from these wars, who conquered new lands, expanded their power and filled the treasury with gold for some reason in this world and not the next. But this will be of little use.

“Vanity is my favorite sin,” says Al Pacino’s character Satan in the brilliant film The Devil’s Advocate. I think we can also confidently add greed and fanaticism to the list of Satan's favorite sins.

“The kingdom of heaven is in your heart and mind,” said Balian, Orlando Bloom’s character, implying that it cannot be obtained by fire, sword, or suicide belt, in Ridley Scott’s film “Kingdom of Heaven.”

The Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatars under the President of Ukraine is a topical example: Much has been said in recent weeks about the promotion by the current Ukrainian and Crimean authorities to the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar People under the President of Ukraine of figures opposed to the Mejlis and more loyal to the current government, and not always in friendly tones. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people categorically ignores the Council, believing that all seats in the Council of Representatives should be taken by members of the Mejlis as the only representative body of the Crimean Tatars, as was the case before. “Milli Firka” (I will speak first of all about it as the most significant and public of the organizations that took part in the Council, but my arguments can be fully extended to the other participants), represented by its chairman Vasvi Abduraimov, declares 5 issues that they are going to supervise in Council of Representatives. And these questions, it must be said, are fully consistent with the interests of the Crimean Tatars.

The cornerstone of the Mejlis’s criticism of the Council of Representatives is the illegitimacy of its members as representatives of the Crimean Tatar people, which is what the spring popular direct elections to the Kurultai are intended to prove. The argument is weighty, especially if members of the Council of Representatives are not on the list of Kurultai delegates. Whether the authorities that appoint members of the Council of Representatives will listen to him is the most fundamental question. I wondered if Milli Firka was criticizing the Majlis’s disregard of the Council of Representatives in retaliation from the position of “Why don’t you take every opportunity to benefit the people?”, since Milli Firka is known for constant and merciless attacks on the Majlis and on less significant occasions, very often going too far. However, after reading recent articles on their website, I did not find such criticism. Vasvi Abduraimov, in his interview with Arguments of the Week, even quite correctly “calls on representatives of the Mejlis to get involved in this work.” However, I doubt that he sincerely wants this: the participation of the Mejlis in the Council will now confuse his cards, because if “Milli Firke” as part of the Council manages to positively resolve the declared issues, they will begin to take away the votes of the Crimean Tatars from the Mejlis. For some reason, it seems to me that the current authorities of Crimea will not mind and can contribute to this. And as soon as something starts to work out, you can expect a series of publications on the topic “But you see, unlike the Mejlis, we are really working.” Well, if nothing works out, then neither the Council of Representatives, nor the conversations about it, nor the efforts of the current government and members of the Council will be worth a damn - they will turn out to be just another soap bubble.

Good begets good.

Power is strength, the manifestation of one’s will in relation to other people. In order to keep power in his hands, no matter state or group, the leader chooses his own tactics: peacemaking or dictatorial. So, in the first case, power rests on the charisma of the leader, on the ability to persuade and lead the group. This kind of power is more stable than the second. It is based on fear and unquestioning submission of society to the leader; it happens when, due to the discontent of citizens, coups occur and the dictator is overthrown. Which tactic is more effective?

An example of a dictator is the personality of Joseph Stalin. The process of seizing power was lengthy; he tactfully used his allies to destroy his opponents. Having won the political race after Lenin's death by eliminating other contenders, Stalin slowly but productively removed all candidates for the post of party leader from his path. The cult of Stalin’s personality is the desire to strengthen positions by maintaining the cult of the leader. Praising the leader from the immediate circle, holding holidays in his honor. During his lifetime, Stalin was a great man, whose services to his homeland were undeniable, but in 1953 Stalin died. After the death of Stalin, the process of “destanilation” began, the destruction of the “cult of personality”, Stalinism. Thus, due to narcissism and the cult of personality, Stalin made a number of mistakes that led to the death of people (the Great Patriotic War) If Stalin had listened to his assistants, Zhukov, then thousands of lives could have been saved.

Many examples from the history of our country confirm the author’s idea that communication, that is, direct communication, listening to other opinions, is an important factor in governance. One of the most peaceful and calm times was in Russia during the reign of A. A. Romanov (1881-1894).

Thus, humanism and mutual understanding are factors in the productive functioning of society; the presence of a common goal and interests unites people and leads to purposeful activity. No dictator can hold power in his hands forever, so “unite and direct” - best way communications between authorities and subordinates.