Актуальность темы исследования. 3 страница

Приложение 7

Доли рынка фирм, работающих в Республике Татарстан

Фирмы-конкуренты	Численность, персонала, чел.	Объем произведенной продукции в 2014 г., тыс. руб.	Доля на рынке, в %
ООО «Инреко»			35,6
ООО «Металлист Плюс»			25,2
ООО «Махагони»			27,4
ООО «Глобус»			11,8
ИТОГО

Приложение 8

Матрица «рынок-товар»

ТОВАР РЫНОК	Производимые товары	Новые товары
Существующие рынки	1. Стратегия на увеличение доли рынка и стабилизации позиций фирмы	3. Стратегия развития продукта (диверсификация товара)
Новые рынки	2. Стратегия выхода на новые рынки (диверсификация рынка)	4. Полная диверсификация

Приложение 9

Расчет срока окупаемости проекта

шаг, месяц	чистый денежный поток, т.р.	сальдо накопленного денежного потока, т.р.
	-5530	-5530
	387,75	-5142,25
	387,29	-4754,95
	444,11	-4310,85
	929,02	-3381,82
	480,97	-2900,86
	513,61	-2387,25
	583,59	-1803,66
	546,12	-1257,54
	546,12	-711,42
	513,05	-198,37
	513,27	314,66
	513,27	827,95

Приложение 10

Определение дисконтированной стоимости чистых поступлений от реализации инвестиционного проекта

Год	Чистый денежн. поток,т.р.	Дисконтный множитель при r = 10%	Дисконтир-ный чистый денежный поток	Дисконтный множитель при r = 15%	Дисконтир-ный чистый денежный поток
	-5530		-5530		-5530
	6357,88	0,909	5779,31	0,869

Приложение 11

Анализ возрастной структуры автопарка

Возраст автотранспорта	Доля
<5 лет	9%
5-10 лет	17%
10-15 лет	42%
> 15 лет	32%
Итого	100%

Приложение 12

Структура автопарка по возрасту

Приложение 13

Расчет инвестиционных затрат

Наименование затрат	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
Чистая стоимость одного автомобиля (руб.)
Доставка (перевозка) 1 автомобиля (руб.)
Обучение техперсонала предприятия (руб.)
Доход от продажи отработавших свой срок автомобилей в утиль, (руб.)
Инвестиционные затраты по проекту (руб.)

Приложение 14

Сравнение источников финансирования проекта

Показатели	Банки
Сбербанк	Внешэкономбанк	Альфа-Банк
Срок кредита	до 18 мес.	от 1 года для инвестиционных кредитов	до 180 дней с последующей пролонгацией
Минимальная сумма	Нет ограничения	$100 000	$100 000
Годовая процентная ставка	В зависимости от условий кредита, 28-30%	от 25-28% годовых и плавающая ставка	от 23%, постоянная ставка

Приложение 15

Выбор оптимальной структуры капитала при реализации проекта

Показатель	Варианты структуры капитала
Доля собственного капитала, %
Доля заёмного капитала, %
Цена собственного капитала, %	38,3	38,3	38,3	38,3	38,3
Цена заёмного капитала, %
Взвешенная цена капитала, %	38,3	35,24	32,18	29,12	26,06

Приложение 16

Структура источников каждого из проектов

Источники финансирования	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
Собственные средства руб.
Заемные средства руб.
Доля заемных средств %

Приложение 17

Расчет переменных затрат по проектам

Показатели	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
Расход топлива на 100 км (литр)	38,6	49,4	41,5
Стоимость топлива (руб.) (дизельное)	18,70	18,70	18,70
Расходы на топливо за 1 км пробега (руб)= Расход топлива на рейс (л/рейс) * стоимость топлива (руб/литр)	721,82	923,78	776,05
Заработная плата водителя/ 1000км
Оплата автомехаников/ 1000 км
стоимость обслуживания автомобиля (двигатели, масло, тосол и т.д.). / 1000 км
Итого затрат на 100 км
Планируемый пробег в год (сотен км)
Итого переменных затрат

Приложение 18

Состав постоянных затрат по проектам

Показатели	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
Амортизация оборудования (стоимость / 5 лет)
Расчеты с кредиторами (стоимость процентных платежей по кредиту)
Оплата лицензий на перевозку
Др. постоянные издержки
Итого постоянных затрат
Итого общих затрат (переменные затр. + постоянные затр.)

Приложение 19

Расчет выручки по каждому из проектов

Показатель	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
Годовой пробег (сотен км)
Средняя оплата рейса, руб.
Количество автомобилей
ВП, руб.

Приложение 20

Расчет прибыли по проектам

Показатели	Volvo	Scania	Mercedes
ВП, руб.
Общие затраты в год, руб.
Прибыль до налогообложения (ВП – Об.Затр.)
Налог на прибыль (20%)
Чистая прибыль (прибыль до н/о - налог на прибыль)

Приложение 21

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good.
The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution.
Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-29