home Stoves and fireplaces The content aspect of the conflict. Subjective aspects of the conflict, types of participants in the conflict, their psychology

The content aspect of the conflict. Subjective aspects of the conflict, types of participants in the conflict, their psychology

INTRODUCTION

Relevance of the problem.Psychological science is constantly evolving. Researchers formulate conclusions and build concepts, reveal to us true knowledge about a person, his capabilities and abilities, by identifying the relationship between the characteristics of mental activity and human behavior.

Conflict, as a topic for study, is very popular among psychologists. It is difficult to imagine a person in whose life there were no conflicts, it is almost impossible. People constantly communicate with each other, solve their problems, defend interests, perform tasks. Most often, for a productive movement in life, a person needs to make contact with others who can help him in some way, but it also happens that a person does not choose a goal for himself, but it is set before him by management, for example, and even colleagues in this case is also included. Collective action is already needed here, but people are all different, everyone has their own understanding of things, and these differences give rise to a conflict.

Conflicts in organizations are quite common. They can be associated with anything from a parking lot to power struggles. And what psychological aspects underlie these conflicts, and what is a conflict in general? This will be discussed in our work.

CHAPTER 1. BASIC APPROACHES TO THE CONCEPT OF CONFLICT IN MODERN PSYCHOLOGY

.1 Socio-psychological content of the concept of "conflict", and its classification

social psychological conflict organizational

Conflicts have always existed, at all times and among all peoples. The word conflict comes from the Latin conflictus, which means "collision" in translation. As a scientific term, this word is used in a close but not identical sense in psychology.

The use of the term "conflict" is found in the development of problems of personality psychology, in general, medical, social psychology, psychotherapy, pedagogy and political science. Conflicts are considered by Western psychologists mainly in the spirit of the traditions of the psychoanalytic concept of the nature of the individual (K. Horney, G. Sullivan, E. Bern), from the standpoint of cognitive psychology (K. Levin), from the behaviorist position (K. L. Hjalp), from the standpoint of role-playing approaches (W. Good, T. Nyokom, W. Mason, etc.). There are also such conflict theories as the theory of structural balance by F. Haider, the structural-functional approach of T. Parsons, the theory of social conflict by L. Coser, the theory of conflictology by W. F. Lincoln, the cognitive theory of M. Deutsch, the theory of behavior strategy in a conflict situation. .Thomas. In connection with such a variety of theories devoted to the problems of conflicts, the authors offer a large number of definitions of this concept, which depend on their point of view on the nature of the biological and social, and on the view of conflict as a personal or mass phenomenon, etc.

M. A. Robert and F. Tilman define conflict as follows: it is a state of shock, disorganization in relation to the previous development. Conflict is a generator of new structures. As you can easily see, the last phrase in this definition points to the positive nature of conflicts and reflects the modern view that in effective organizations conflicts are not only possible, but also desirable.

The definition of J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstein is as follows: conflict is the interaction of two objects that have incompatible goals and ways to achieve these goals. As such objects can be considered people, separate groups, armies, monopolies, classes, social institutions, etc., whose activities are somehow connected with setting and solving problems of organization and management, with forecasting and decision-making, as well as planning targeted actions. .

K. Levin characterizes conflict as a situation in which oppositely directed forces of approximately equal magnitude simultaneously act on an individual. In his works, he considers both intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts.

From the point of view of role theory, conflict is understood as a situation of incompatible expectations (requirements) to which a person playing a particular role is exposed. Typically, such conflicts are divided into inter-role, intra-role and personality-role.

In L. Kozer's theory of social conflict, conflict is a struggle over values and claims due to a lack of status, power and means, in which the goals of opponents are neutralized, infringed or eliminated by their rivals. The author focuses on the positive function of the conflict - maintaining the dynamic balance of the social system. If the conflict, according to Coser, is associated with goals, values or interests that do not affect the foundations of the existence of groups, then it is positive. If the conflict is connected with the most important values of the group, then it is undesirable, since it undermines the foundations of the group and carries a tendency to destroy it.

The founder of an independent direction in the study of conflicts in American sociology and social psychology - conflictology - U. F. Lincoln approaches the consideration of the conflict from the standpoint of common sense and pragmatism and adheres to the following working definition of conflict: conflict is an understanding, imagination or fear by at least one side that its interests are violated, infringed and ignored by the other side or parties. And two or more parties are ready to fight for the capture, suppression or destruction of the interests of rivals in order to satisfy their own interests. In essence, a conflict is a competition in satisfaction of interests, in fact, a conflict of interests.

In domestic psychology, as a rule, there are three types of conflicts that have a socio-psychological content: social, intergroup and interpersonal. The following definition is most common: conflict is a collision of oppositely directed, incompatible tendencies in the mind of a single individual, in interpersonal interactions or interpersonal relationships of individuals or groups of people, associated with acute negative emotional experiences.

There are various classifications of conflicts in the scientific literature. The basis for classifications can be their source, content, significance, type of permission, form of expression, type of relationship structure, social formalization, socio-psychological effect, social result. Conflicts can be hidden and obvious, intense and erased, short-term and protracted, vertical and horizontal, etc.

Let us dwell in more detail on some classifications of conflicts.

By directionconflicts are divided into "horizontal" and "vertical", in addition, there are also "mixed" ones. Horizontal conflicts include such conflicts in which persons who are subordinate to each other are not involved. To. vertical conflicts include those in which persons who are subordinate to one another participate. Mixed conflicts have both vertical and horizontal components. Conflicts that have a vertical component, i.e. vertical and mixed - this is approximately 70-80% of all conflicts.

By value for the teamconflicts are divided into constructive (creative, positive) and destructive (destructive, negative). The first is beneficial, the second is harmful. It is impossible to leave the first, it is necessary to leave the second. According to W. F. Lincoln, the positive effects of conflict often manifest themselves in the following ways:

conflict accelerates the process of self-awareness;

under its influence, a certain set of values is affirmed and confirmed, although contradictory and only for a while, but stable enough to serve the set goals;

conflict contributes to the sense of community, since it may turn out that others have similar interests and that they strive for the same ends and results and support the use of the same means - to the extent that formal and informal alliances arise;

conflict leads to the unification of like-minded people within groups and even peoples and between them;

it promotes détente or upstages other conflicts;

conflict promotes prioritization;

it plays the role of a safety valve for the safe and even constructive release of emotions;

thanks to him, attention is drawn to dissatisfaction or proposals that need discussion, understanding, with knowledge, support, legal registration and permission;

conflict leads to working contacts with other people and groups;

it stimulates the development of systems for the equitable prevention, resolution and management of conflicts.

The negative impact of conflict often manifests itself in the following:

the conflict is a threat to the declared interests of the parties;

it is a threat to the social system that ensures equality and stability;

conflict hinders rapid change;

it leads to loss of support;

conflict makes people or organizations dependent on public statements that cannot be easily and quickly abandoned;

it leads to quick action instead of a carefully considered response;

as a result of the conflict, the trust of the parties to each other is undermined;

conflict creates disunity among those who need or even seek unity;

as a result of the conflict, the formation of alliances and coalitions is undermined;

the conflict tends to deepen and expand;

it changes priorities to such an extent that it threatens other interests.

By the nature of the reasonsconflicts can be divided into objective and subjective. The former are generated by objective reasons, the latter - by subjective, personal ones. An objective conflict is more often resolved constructively (both in business and in the personal-emotional sphere), although the process of resolving it can be very lengthy and cause tension between the participants in the conflict. Subjective conflict, on the other hand, is usually resolved destructively.

conflicts are distinguished and according to the scope of their permission. It can be business and personal-emotional sphere.

M. Deutsch classifies conflicts according to the criterion truth-falsityor reality:

a) "genuine" conflict - existing objectively and perceived adequately;

b) "accidental or conditional" conflict - depending on easily changeable circumstances, which, however, is not recognized by the parties;

c) "displaced" conflict - when we mean a clear conflict, behind which is hidden another, invisible conflict, which lies at the basis of a clear one;

d) "incorrectly attributed" conflict - a conflict between parties who misunderstood each other, and, as a result, about misinterpreted problems;

e) "latent" conflict - a conflict that should have occurred, but which does not exist, because for one reason or another it is not recognized by the parties;

f) "false" conflict - when there are no objective grounds for the conflict and the latter exists only due to errors in perception and understanding.

By permission typeconflicts can be divided as follows:

a) conflicts leading to the destruction of one (or one) of the opposing tendencies, attitudes, stereotypes, views of the individual or group - with the antagonistic nature of the conflict (for example, the rejection of social behavior);

b) conflicts leading to the modification of both opposite tendencies, parties (for example, mutual concessions, resorting to personal defenses, etc.);

c) conflicts leading to a delay in the implementation or reorientation of one of the incompatible needs, tendencies, attitudes of an individual or group in a given situation and to the approval, recognition and victory of the other side (for example, an agreement to postpone the execution of an order);

d) conflicts leading to the choice in a given situation of one of the simultaneously impossible tendencies, lines of behavior, things that do not contradict each other (for example, recognition of the correctness of a partner on private issues).

According to the form of expression there are:

a) conflicts of one or another direction of action, behavior ("rapprochement - removal", "rapprochement - rapprochement", "removal - removal");

b) conflicts of one quality or another, intensity of action, behavior (mutual or unilateral inconsistent actions, refusal to interact, interference, aggressive acts, violence);

c) conflicts expressed by signs of verbal or non-verbal communication (silence, gaze, posture, facial expressions when perceiving an opponent, tone of speech, harsh expressions in conversation, nicknames, oral and written dispute and all other features of the manner of address and communication);

d) conflicts hidden and open, masked and demonstrative.

By type of social formalizationconflicts are divided into official and unofficial (formal and informal). These conflicts are often associated with the bureaucratic organization of the enterprise and can be both "horizontal" and "vertical" (horizontal determined by the division of labor, and vertical - the relationship of leadership and subordination).

According to the socio-psychological effectconflicts are divided into:

a) conflicts that develop, affirm, activate each of the conflicting individuals and the group as a whole;

b) conflicts that contribute to the self-affirmation or development of one of the conflicting individuals or groups as a whole and the suppression, limitation of another individual or group of individuals.

The analysis of conflicts in this aspect is connected with the problems of authority and leadership, the style of relationships and interaction in groups, and should be central in socio-psychological studies of conflict situations.

In the most commonly used classification, the base is scope of social interaction- conflicts are intergroup, intragroup, interpersonal (most works in social psychology are devoted to them) and intrapersonal.

In order to resolve the conflict, first of all, it is necessary to determine its essence, that is, to answer the question: what is the type and cause of the conflict? What can be called as the causes of conflicts? WF Lincoln classifies the causes of conflicts on five grounds: information, structure, values, attitudes and behavior, and accordingly identifies five main factors (causes) of conflicts.

The information factor is the information that is acceptable for one side and unacceptable for the other. Such information may be incomplete or inaccurate information provided by one of the parties. The author refers to this “factor the undesirable disclosure and underestimation of facts, and their significance in solving controversial problems, as well as such phenomena as involuntary disinformation, rumors, etc.

The structural factor is the formal and informal characteristics of the group. They are expressed in the specifics of legal authority and legislation, in the status, rights of men and women, their age, the role of traditions, the system of accountability and information transfer, various social norms, etc.

The value factor is those principles that are proclaimed or rejected, that are adhered to or that are neglected, that are forgotten or even that are deliberately violated. These are the principles that all members of the group are expected to follow, so values bring to the social group a sense of order and a purpose for existence. They differ in form (censorship, sanctions) and in content (generally accepted order, rules of conduct, teas). The values are described as:

personal systems of beliefs and behaviors (prejudices, preferences, priorities regarding belonging to a group);

group systems of beliefs and behavior;

systems of beliefs and behavior of the whole society;

common normative values of all mankind;

professional values;

modes of action and methods peculiar to individual social institutions and organizations;

religious, cultural, regional, local and political values.

The relationship factor is associated with satisfaction from the interaction of two or more parties or its absence. Here attention is drawn to the following aspects:

the basis of the relationship (voluntary or forced);

the essence of the relationship (independent, dependent, interdependent);

relationship expectations;

the importance of relationships;

the value of relationships;

the length of the relationship;

compatibility of people in the process of relationships;

the contribution of the parties to the relationship, etc.

The behavioral factor is a strategy of behavior in a conflict situation: avoidance, adaptation, competition, compromise, cooperation (according to K. Thomas).

So, as a summary, I would like to say a few words about how conflicts are understood today.

The main changes in the paradigm of conflict research that have influenced attitudes towards conflicts and the practice of working with them can be formulated in a few simple theses:

Conflict is a common feature of social systems, it is inevitable and inevitable, and therefore should be considered as a natural fragment. human life. Conflict must be accepted as a form of normal human interaction. While conflict may not be the best form of human interaction, we must stop viewing it as some kind of pathology or anomaly. Conflict is normal.

Conflict does not always and does not necessarily lead to destruction. On the contrary, it is one of the main processes that serve to preserve the whole. Under certain conditions, even open conflicts can contribute to the viability and sustainability of the social whole. The conflict should not be perceived as an unequivocally destructive phenomenon and should not be assessed in the same unambiguous way. The modern understanding of conflict suggests that conflict is not necessarily a bad thing.

Conflict contains potential positive opportunities. The general idea of the positive effects of conflicts boils down to this: “The productivity of confrontation stems from the fact that conflict leads to change, change leads to adaptation, adaptation leads to survival” (Goddard, 1986, p. 8).

Conflict -?change -? adaptation-?survival.

If we stop seeing conflict as a threat and start treating it as a signal that something needs to change, we will take a more constructive stance. The value of conflicts is that they prevent the ossification of the system, open the way for innovation. Conflict is a stimulus for change, it is a challenge that requires a creative response.

In Chinese, the character for "crisis", "conflict" is formed by a combination of two characters. One of them means "risk", "danger", and the other - "opportunity". In a conflict, no doubt, there is a risk of destruction of relations, the danger of not overcoming the crisis, but there is also a favorable opportunity to reach a new level of relations, constructively overcome the crisis and gain new life opportunities. The conflict potentially contains a powerful constructive principle, which means that conflict can be good.

The conflict can be managed, and managed in such a way that its negative, destructive consequences can be minimized or eliminated, and constructive possibilities are strengthened.

This means that conflict is something to work with. And in our time, working with conflict is recognized as a common social and personal interest.

1.2 Structural and dynamic characteristics of the conflict

A general analysis of the concepts proposed by experts to describe conflicts, as well as the "natural" categories that exist in everyday consciousness, allows us to come to the following conclusions.

If we exclude from consideration concepts that are more related to the description of the general problems of conflicts (for example, methods of studying conflicts, a person in conflict, etc.), then the remaining categories can be attributed to the structural or dynamic characteristics of the conflict. Structural characteristics of the conflict are static elements that could be found in the "cut" of the conflict, and its dynamic characteristics are related to that. "what events are happening" in the conflict.

Structural characteristics are constituent elements conflict. They reflect the components without which its existence is impossible: the “withdrawal” of any such component from the conflict space either nullifies the conflict or significantly changes its character. The structural components of the conflict include:

) parties (participants) of the conflict

) conflict conditions

) the subject of the conflict

) actions of the participants in the conflict

) outcome (result) of the conflict

Parties (participants) of the conflict

In the conflictological literature, they are also often called opposing parties, less often - competitors, or rivals. Sometimes they are called opponents, which usually refers to conflicts that take place in an acute form, where the interaction of the participants really resembles the struggle of warring opponents.

The participants in the conflict are usually designated in terms of role positions within which they interact in a given situation (“boss-subordinate”, “husband-wife”, “fathers and children”). Important - from the point of view of the emergence and development of the conflict - are the interests of the participants in the conflict, the goals pursued by them, their socio-cultural and individual psychological characteristics.

The transition of the participants in the situation to conflict interaction begins with the actions of one of them, the one who takes the initiative (at the beginning of the struggle for the subject of the conflict, in an attempt to sort things out) and, at least, on initial stage conflict can be seen as its initiator. If at other stages of the conflict the initiative of action more often remains with one side, then it can be considered as an active side, and the other - as a passive one.

Successful conflict resolution requires taking into account the interests of all participants in the conflict. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind not only its direct participants - those between whom the conflict interaction actually develops, but also other persons whose interests may be affected by this situation and whose position may have influence on the outcome of the conflict. In essence, they can be considered as passive participants in this conflict situation.

Terms of conflict

The conditions of a phenomenon are usually understood as the circumstances or factors that determine its characteristics and the possibility of its occurrence (in the case of necessary and sufficient conditions). The conditions of the conflict, which are among its structural characteristics, include the conditions for its occurrence and the conditions for its course.

Usually, the conditions of emergence are understood as the objective features of the external situation, which are considered essential for the emergence of a conflict. For example. R. Dahrendorf, describing the causes of social conflicts, writes about “technical” (appearance of leaders in subgroups), political (possibility of organizing opposing interests) and “social” (opportunities for communication and an increase in the number of members of subgroups) conditions for the emergence of conflicts (Turner. 1985) . In the emergence of social phenomena, as a rule, a significant role is played by subjective factors associated with people. And in this case it is very difficult or even impossible to determine those factors that can be considered as necessary or sufficient for the emergence of a conflict.

With regard to interpersonal situations, we can talk about the general nature of their relationship (remember the Deutsch scheme with 16 types of social interaction), which can be described based on the parameters of cooperativeness - competitiveness, equality - inequality of partners, their orientation to the task and relationships, etc. The situation of interaction between people, regardless of their attitude towards it, their subjective position, assessment of their relations, etc., can be objectively characterized as a situation of positive interdependence of people (cooperative situation) or their contradictory or negative interdependence (competitive situation). Individuals themselves may not view their relationships as contradictory or competitive, but objectively competitive relationships are considered to be one of the conditions that, other things being equal, contribute to conflict.

As a rule, close contacts between people (for example, marital relations) potentially contain multiple types of cooperative ties, and at the same time - in an explicit or hidden form - contradictions in goals and interests. Then the factors contributing to the transition of their interaction into conflict forms will act as conditions for the emergence of a conflict.

The causes of the conflict are related to some specific actions of the participants in the situation or the circumstances that have arisen. Whatever problems in their communication may exist, whatever objective situations may arise, ultimately, specific people come into conflict. To identify the cause of the conflict means to understand what exactly in the actions or behavior of the participants led to the transition of their interaction into conflict forms.

The conditions of the course of the conflict include factors that influence its development. Usually, conflictologists talk about the factors of the situation - the socio-cultural context of the conflict (including cultural norms for the course and resolution of conflicts), the immediate situational background for the development of this conflict situation (which can act as a factor in aggravating the conflict), the presence of third forces interested in mitigating or aggravating the conflict, etc.

The subject of the conflict

The subject of the conflict (sometimes also called the object) is what becomes the object of conflicting or incompatible claims of the parties. The subject of the conflict can be a specific object (for example, a material object - one book for two), a specific opportunity (one position for which two people apply, or one ticket to a sanatorium for the entire department), or some kind of value statement that excludes the opinion of another, or observance / non-observance of some rules, etc. The subject of the conflict is exactly what is being argued about, what becomes the object of negotiations or the struggle of the participants in the interaction. The subject of the conflict is usually related to the goals of the conflicting parties (or at least to the goal of one of them), but not all of their goals in the conflict are related to the subject of the conflict.

Actions of the participants in the conflict

The structural component of the conflict, without which it simply could not exist, is also the actions of its participants. Together they form what is called conflict interaction. The mutual orientation and interdependence of the actions of the participants forces us to speak not so much about the actions of individuals, but about their interaction. Let us recall Hegel's classical description of the development of contradiction: “The action begins, strictly speaking, only when the opposition contained in the situation comes out. But since the colliding action violates some opposing side, then by this discord it provokes against itself the opposite force, which it attacks, and as a result, the reaction is directly connected with the action. Conflict interaction, in essence, is the main content of the conflict process.

Outcome of the conflict

The outcome of the conflict as a structural element is not so much the result that completes the stage of conflict development, but the ideal image of this result that the participants in the conflict interaction have and, ultimately, determines its direction.

In conflict interaction, the participants pursue goals related to the subject of the conflict, influencing each other, “saving face”, etc. They are far from always fully understood by the participants in the situation, and even more so are formulated in terms of achieving specific results. At the same time, the image of the desired outcome of the conflict becomes the regulator of the specific actions of the participants in the situation.

The structural characteristics of the conflict, being its necessary component, at the same time do not make it possible to predict the development of the conflict. From a practical point of view, therefore, it is more significant to consider the actions of the participants and the outcome of the conflict in the context of dynamic characteristics.

The dynamic characteristics of the conflict include the stages of development of the conflict and the processes that occur at its various stages. The description of these characteristics involves consideration of the regulators of the conflict dynamics that determine its emergence and development. Of course, the distinction between the structural and dynamic parameters of a conflict is sometimes not clear enough. For example, the goals of the parties to the conflict act, on the one hand, as regulators of interaction, on the other hand, they are characteristics of the parties to the conflict, its structural elements.

The main attention is paid to the dynamic characteristics of the conflict in works on conflictology. Obviously, this is due to the fact that it is what happens in the conflict that has a decisive influence on its constructive or destructive outcome, on the resolution of the conflict and on its consequences. In any case, issues related to the dynamics of the conflict are considered in the conflictological literature much more often than its structural characteristics.

Describing the dynamic characteristics of a conflict involves attention to the development of the conflict and requires an answer to two key questions: what happens in the conflict (the processes that occur at different stages) and how it happens (the regulators of these processes).

It is generally believed that the conflict goes through the following stages of development:

) the emergence of an objective conflict situation (or pre-conflict situation)

) awareness of the situation as a conflict

) conflict interaction (or actual conflict)

) conflict resolution

Despite the fact that this view is almost generally accepted, it raises the question: when, in fact, does a conflict arise and what should be considered its beginning? In domestic literature, this problem is reflected in the distinction between the concepts of conflict and an objective conflict situation. In general, analyzing the content invested by different authors in the concept of a conflict situation, we can say that it is mainly interpreted as a set of objective external circumstances and conditions that contribute to the emergence of a conflict. The conflict, in turn, is a real clash of the participants in the situation, their confrontation, the beginning of which is their awareness of the situation as a conflict and the transition to conflict interaction.

Thus, the analysis of the dynamic characteristics of the conflict involves a description of how a conflict arises from a certain set of external conditions, how the conflict interaction itself occurs, and how the conflict is resolved (or otherwise ends).

1.3 Specificity of organizational conflict

One of the most common types of conflict in recent times is organizational. It contains some specificity, which is characteristic of our days. An enterprise is a functional-purpose community created by individuals or wider communities (superorganizations) to meet the social needs of individuals and communities. From this point of view, the enterprise is an internally contradictory system. On the one hand, it is a tool for achieving the goals of another organization or individual. In the conditions of market relations, the subject of goal-setting can be the owner of an enterprise, a group of holders of the main block of shares, a state organization, a ministry, department, etc. But on the other hand, for successful functioning, it must at least partially be the subject of its own activity, that is, it must have the ability to goal-setting, freedom, autonomy and other characteristics of the subject.

Organizations whose goals and functions are mainly set from the outside are called instrumental. Instrumentally, the organization determines a whole class of conflicts. The most important of of them is the conflict of goal setting. This conflict arises when the organization faces conflicting and even incompatible goals. For example, an enterprise has been set the goal of producing high-precision machines and instruments that are at the forefront of scientific and technological progress, but at the same time it has also formulated the task of ensuring a high rate of return, significant savings in material and financial resources, reducing investment in the development of new technologies, etc. If there are reserves for some time, it is possible to move towards these goals at the same time. But as soon as these reserves are exhausted, progress in each of the directions will be possible only with losses in others, since management is organized in such a way that different people and departments are responsible for each of these areas, then the inconsistency of goals will result in a conflict relationship between specialized groups of workers. This conflict is of an externally organized nature, since its subjects are the superorganization - the founder of the given enterprise and the given enterprise.

Goal achievement is organically related to intraorganizational conflicts typical of instrumental organizations that are dysfunctional in nature. The main element of any organization is people - individuals, groups and other communities. An instrumental organization is most often a bureaucratic organization that builds its activities on strict adherence to rules, instructions, and norms. Its main requirement is discipline and order. But already R. Merton showed that discipline is necessary for agents to achieve standardized behavior, regardless of achieving the goal. They accept the rules of conduct not as a means, but as an end. As a result, the main goal is changed. The purpose of the activity of people at the enterprise is not to achieve the goals set by the subject - the founder of the organization (production of certain material values, services, profit), but the implementation of rules and instructions, maintaining discipline and order.

Along with instrumental organizations in modern conditions subjective organizations have become widespread, that is, such organizations that themselves set the goal of activity, are the subjects of goal setting. As researchers of organizations note, enterprises that rely on their own subjectivity and the subjectivity of their divisions, deny the need for universal regulation, and are able to determine how they do their work, how to achieve externally fixed goals under given restrictions, are relatively young. They arose in connection with the adoption of the doctrine of human relations in organizations in order to increase the efficiency of the enterprise through the use of the so-called "human factor". But such organizations, according to F. M. Borodkin, N. M. Koryak, are also more conflicting in nature.

The main reason for the increased internal conflict of organizations of this type is that they are fundamentally based on the ability of people to self-activity, on the subjective principle of both individuals and groups. It is in this type of enterprise that an informal organization dominates, in which centrifugal processes are a source of conflict. Informal groups in such an enterprise may form their own goals, which differ significantly from the goals of the organization. And this is already a cause of organizational conflict. And in conditions when the formal leaders of the organization become members of such a group, they are quite capable of opposing the goals of their group to the goals of their enterprise. So, if the goal of an enterprise is the production of one or another type of machine, and on the basis of the sale of this product, the employees of these enterprises satisfy their need for providing material goods, provide themselves with a means of subsistence, then a certain group of managers on this stage it may turn out to be more profitable to bring this enterprise to a state of complete collapse, bring it to the brink of bankruptcy and, against the backdrop of general panic and internal disorganization of the team, buy a controlling stake. As a result, an internal conflict arises between the goals of a narrow group of enterprise managers and the main personnel, workers and employees of the enterprise.

Conflictologists indicate that any enterprise has such units, the interaction between which is potentially conflicting. In this case, both horizontal and vertical conflicts are possible. Horizontal conflicts most often arise when various departments of the enterprise draw their funds from one limited source, provided that the free reserves of funds have already been depleted.

But the conflict between the structural divisions of the enterprise can arise not only because of the lack of funds, but purchase positional nature.Positioning is an attitude that manifests itself in the difference in interests, goals of people interacting with each other in solving the general direction of achieving goals. In other words, positionality is the division of the collective, the source of which is the awareness of opposites, interests and goals of its members. On the basis of the contradictory positions of individuals, groups, divisions, a positional conflict arises. "Positional conflict, according to the definition of A. I. Prigogine, is a type of controlled inter-goal tension associated with the opposition of parallel goals along a single horizontal line."

However, most often organizational conflicts arise as a result of the internal inconsistency of the social structure of enterprises, their construction according to a vertical hierarchical principle. And here, as Dahrendorf and his followers rightly pointed out, the main conflict factor is the struggle of various individuals, groups, structures over the problems of power. This struggle is of the most diverse nature.

In any organization, in any enterprise, by the very nature of the functioning of the organization, there are two types of power, power based on position in the hierarchy and power based on professional knowledge. These two types of power contradict each other to a certain extent. The power of an administrator, a bureaucrat, arises from his social status as a leading worker, is based on the right to order, and therefore submission to him is not voluntary. The administrator, in principle, is not obliged to convince his subordinates of the validity of his order, although a certain type of administrator may do this. The power of a technical specialist - a professional is associated with the recognition of his social status from these positions, and therefore submission to a competent specialist is voluntary. The main practical problem modern organizations is to determine the degree of independence of specialists in the field of operational formulation of the objectives of the activity, the type of tasks to be solved, the method of using knowledge and monitoring execution. The struggle between holders of different types of power - administrative and professional knowledge - is one of the most common types of intergroup conflict. Intergroup vertical conflicts in a wide variety of forms are the most common form of organizational conflict. As noted by F. M. Borodkin and N. M. Koryak, the very basis of the hierarchical structure of organizations, where there are relations between a leader and a subordinate, in which the leader is endowed with management and control functions and has levers of coercion, potentially contains the possibility of a conflict situation. The very fact of the presence of potential coercion indicates a possible incompatibility of the goals of the activities of managers and subordinates, and this gives rise to conflict situations.

A very common source of conflict in organizations is imbalance of workersplaces. The balance of the workplace means that the workplace should not be assigned functions that are not provided with the means necessary for their execution, there should not be funds that are not associated with any function. At the same time, duties and rights must be mutually balanced, i.e., each duty must be provided with a certain right, and no right can be exercised without a certain duty; the amount of responsibility and the amount of power must be connected, i.e., responsibility for something must be provided by the appropriate power and vice versa. Balance also means that duties should be associated only with a given set of functions, and responsibility can arise only if this particular set of functions is not performed, that is, if duties associated with functions are not performed. The balance of the workplace means, finally, that the totality of rights and power is guaranteed only by these means.

It is very difficult to achieve such an ideal state that all jobs are balanced. Functions and facilities for many types of jobs are often only approximate. Even when functions are defined, sometimes the means to implement them is not known. This applies, first of all, to those workplaces where technological activity is fuzzy. Such, for example, are many jobs in the economic service, services of linear and functional management, inspection services, and many research jobs.

In such situations, a spontaneous redistribution of functions and resources among homogeneous and even heterogeneous jobs begins, not provided for by any rules and instructions.

If redistribution occurs in a group whose members are mutually friendly, conflict situations and conflicts do not arise. The group knows who does what work better, there is a desire to equalize the load, a sense of mutual responsibility for the implementation of a set of prescribed functions. Such a group has powerful informal means of influencing each of its members, which will be discussed below. Gradually, with the long existence of a group in a stable composition, a traditional balancing of jobs, distribution of functions and funds is developed.

Complications also arise when someone leaves a group in which a balance has already been achieved. If for a long time no one replaces the vacancy that has arisen, the group has to start balancing again. This is fraught with intra-group conflicts. They are often invisible to the prying eye and outwardly expressed only in a slight decrease in productivity or quality of work. For the time being, no one should interfere with them. The group will take care of itself. It is possible and necessary to intervene in the conflict only when the members of the group could not agree among themselves, and the conflict went beyond its limits, or when the group turns to strangers for it as arbitrators.

Interpersonal conflicts are very common in organizations. The conflict is based on clashes of people, their opinions, positions, views, characters, interests from the point of view of the mental state of the warring parties, the conflict acts at the same time both as a defensive reaction and as a response emotionally colored reaction.

Modern conflictology has described in sufficient detail the dynamics of conflicts. Most conflicts mature gradually and are initially in the so-called incubatory, latent (latent) state, in which the conflicting parties secretly express their claims, as they say "behind the backs". At the same time, as a rule, attempts are made to satisfy these claims in a “peaceful” way. If such a method does not cause a positive reaction, is ignored or encounters a refusal, the conflict goes into an open form. This stage of conflict development is called conflict behavior. Conflict behavior- these are actions aimed at directly or indirectly blocking the achievement by the opposing side of its goals, intentions, interests. The conflict in this phase takes the form of sharp disagreements, which individuals not only seek to resolve, but also exacerbate in every possible way, continuing to destroy the former structures of normal

Thus, the conflict model contains: the situation, the sources of the conflict, the possibility of the escalation of the conflict, the reaction to the situation, the implementation of the conflict, the management of the conflict, the functional and dysfunctional consequences of the conflict.

Consequences of the conflictcan be functional (constructive) or dysfunctional (destructive). Among the functional consequences, one can single out: the search and development of a mutually acceptable solution, the removal of hostility, injustice of conflicting people, detente, the emergence of conditions for cooperation, creativity, mutual understanding, analysis of problems and the development of various options for their solutions.

Dysfunctional consequences of conflicts: dissatisfaction of people, their poor health, increased turnover of staff, reduced cooperation, excessively strong loyalty to one's group and manifestation of unproductive competition with other groups, perception of the other party as an "enemy", decrease in communications up to their complete disappearance, displacement emphasis - giving more importance to "winning" the conflict than solving the problem.

Thus, the following questions were considered necessary for the disclosure of the above problem.

Conflict -This is a special type of interaction between the subjects of the organization (opponents), in which the actions of one side, faced with opposition from the other, make it impossible to realize its goals and interests. The conflict helps to reveal a variety of points of view, provides additional information, allows you to analyze a large number of alternatives, etc. This makes the process of developing a decision by a group or an individual leader more efficient, gives people the opportunity to express their thoughts and feelings, to satisfy needs.

In general, there are two conflict groups- functional conflicts and dysfunctional. conflicts of the first group lead to an increase in the efficiency of the organization, and conflicts of the second group lead to a decrease in personal satisfaction, the destruction of group cooperation. There are four main types of conflict: intrapersonal, interpersonal, conflict between an individual and a group, and intergroup conflict.

Causes of conflict- it is differences in perceptions and values that lead to conflict, because, instead of objectively analyzing the problem, people often consider only those views, alternatives and aspects of the situation that are favorable only to their group and personal needs.

CONCLUSION

The life practice of people shows that interpersonal relationships often proceed in conditions of conflicts, which are an integral part of human relations. A special place in a number of crisis situations is occupied by conflicts in organizations. The conflict in the organization is an open form of existence of contradictions, interests that arise in the process of interaction between people in solving issues of production and personal order.

Any conflict, as a rule, has a strong destructive charge. The spontaneous development of the conflict very often leads to disruption of the normal functioning of the organization. It is usually accompanied by powerful negative emotions that the parties experience towards each other. When the conflict reaches its extreme stage, it is already difficult to deal with it.

However, conflicts have to be dealt with and are an integral part of the life of any organization. Moreover, in many cases it is the presence of conflicts that is an indicator that the organization is developing.

An analysis of the causes, course and results of conflicts convinces us that many of them are not only acceptable, but also desirable, since they provide information about the problems of the organization, make it possible to identify processes hidden from the eyes, a variety of positions, and so on.

Both foreign (K. Thomas) and domestic (N.V. Grishina) psychologists consider it necessary to focus on such aspects of the study of conflicts as forms of behavior in conflict situations, as well as factors influencing the choice of a particular form of behavior. Five main strategies have been identified: rivalry, cooperation, compromise, avoidance, and accommodation. The choice of one or another strategy for overcoming the conflict depends on various factors: personal characteristics, the level of damage caused, possible consequences, the significance of the problem being solved, the characteristics of the working atmosphere in the team, the specifics of team management.

LITERATURE

Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology. M., 1999. 551 p.
Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention: conflict. Novosibirsk, 1989. 190s.
Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2000. 464 p.
Gromova O.N. Conflictology. M., 2000. 320 p.
Dubrovskaya O.F. Conflict: what it is desirable to know about it//Handbook of personnel officer. - 2001 - No. 5 (p. 97-103)
Zaitsev A.K. Social conflict in the enterprise. Kaluga, 1993. 188s.
Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of conflictology. Rostov on / D: Phoenix, 1998. 480s.
Kabachenko T.S. Psychology of management: Tutorial. M., 2001. 384 p.
Pochebut L.G., Chiker V.A. Organizational Social Psychology: Textbook. SPb., 2000 298 p.
Practical psychodiagnostics. Methods and tests. Proc. allowance / ed. D.Ya. Raygorodsky. - Samara, 2000. - 672 p.
Psychology of conflict / Comp. Grishina N.V. SPb, 2001. 448s.
Rozanova V., Besedina N. Psychological features of conflicts // personnel management. 2000. No. 3. S. 42-46.
Rubinstein S. L. Fundamentals of General Psychology: in 2 volumes, M. 1989. v. 2.
Social conflictology / Ed. A.V. Morozov. M., 2002 336s.
Stankin M. Conflict and its resolution // Personnel management. 1999. No. 7. S. 11-16.

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.

In psychology, the concept of conflict is used quite widely, in fact, addressing all heterogeneous phenomena associated with the psyche of people. A conflict is also called interpersonal difficulties, and intrapersonal experiences, and crisis phenomena (the subject of psychotherapeutic work), and a collision of algorithms for solving learning problems in a student, etc.

Here are some of the most common definitions of this concept in psychological science. The Psychological Dictionary (1983) defines conflict as an intractable contradiction associated with acute emotional experiences. V. V. Druzhinin (1989) and his co-authors give the following definition of conflict: “Conflict is a way to resolve fundamental contradictions that cannot be resolved in another (logical) way.” N. V. Grishina (2000) considers conflict as a bipolar phenomenon - a confrontation between two principles, manifesting itself in the activity of the parties aimed at overcoming the contradiction, and each of the parties to the conflict is represented by an active subject (subjects). A. Ya. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov (1999) offer the following definition: “Conflict is understood as the most acute way to resolve significant contradictions that arise in the process of interaction, which consists in countering the subjects of the conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions.”

Despite the closeness of understanding of the components or signs of the conflict by various authors, none of the definitions can be accepted as universal, either due to the limited nature of the phenomena it covers, or because of its ambiguity.

In the framework of this work, we will focus on only one aspect of the study of the conflict - socio-psychological. This is a specific aspect of conflict analysis, but it is very significant for understanding social clashes and the conflicts they generate.

What does socio-psychological conflict mean? As can be seen from the most defining phraseological unit, this type of conflict combines two components, two components, but combines them in such a way that it denotes a new essence, a different type of phenomena themselves or a different type of understanding of already familiar phenomena. Here, such components as psychological conflict and social conflict are integrated.

Psychological conflict- this is a contradiction that is difficult to resolve within the framework of the subject's previous ideas and behavior, caused by a combination of external and internal factors and associated with strong feelings, emotions, which are usually negative.

social conflict- this is a situation when the parties (subjects) of open interaction pursue some of their own goals that contradict or mutually exclude each other, which causes mutual opposition, confrontation.

Combining these two judgments, we put forward our own understanding of conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon through a system of interrelated and necessary features:

there is a situation of an open clash in the form of confrontation or opposition of two or more parties that are active subjects;
the emerging type of interaction causes a certain type of relationship between the parties - a relationship of mutual hostility or hostility;
each of the parties pursues its goals based on needs and motives, experiencing difficulties (barriers) in achieving them due to the actions of other parties;
conflict interaction is mediated by a certain common object for all parties, called the resource of the conflict: the resource is always limited; it is less than what the parties need;
the mutual dependence of the parties does not allow them to leave the "arena" of interaction;
relations formed in conflict interaction, together with the experience of the impossibility of achieving one's goal, causes strong negative emotions in the parties.

The proposed features, in our opinion, make it possible to determine the code of phenomena, which can be treated as a socio-psychological subject and use socio-psychological methodology for their analysis.

It is necessary to separate the phenomena of socio-psychological conflict and socio-psychological contradiction. If in the first case we are dealing with open opposition, with behavior, then in the second case -; only with awareness of differences in social attitudes, attitudes, opinions, expectations, etc., i.e. of the entire socio-psychological complex that characterizes interacting social subjects. This difference, perceived as a contradiction (inconsistency, heterogeneity), causes feelings, but in itself may not result in open, opposition, confrontation.

The separation of these phenomena predetermines the differentiation of concepts that describe the various components (and possibly stages) of the socio-psychological approach to conflict analysis. We also refer to such concepts interpersonal and intergroup tension and the conflict itself.

Interpersonal and intergroup tension is a consequence of the socio-psychological contradiction described above, but it is formed not only through the awareness of this contradiction, but also through the obligatory subsequent acute experiences. The determination of this phenomenon is due not only to the difference in goals, motives, etc., but also to the basic principle of dividing the society, the group into “us” and “them”. Attributing certain social attributes to participants in joint life activity gives rise to the perception of various members of the group, the social environment as identical to themselves (equal) - "ours", and as others, not their own, different - "strangers". K. Lorentz defines this feature of differentiation of subjects according to the principle of "friend or foe" as a necessary basis for the formation of tension and subsequent conflict.

Conflict is not only a readiness to act in a certain way (which can be understood as a social attitude towards a conflict or a state of pre-conflict), but, first of all, the very real behavior in the form of opposition, confrontation. It is important to note that tension does not always result in conflict, as well as a conflict attitude, while conflict implies the presence of both tension and a conflict attitude. Thus, tension is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the existence of a conflict. In order for the conflict to be realized (manifested), additional conditions must be present.

It is also necessary to supplement the proposed understanding of the conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon with some considerations. First of all,contradiction must be updated, i.e., embodied in the interaction of conflicting parties with conflicting values, goals, motives, attitudes. Secondly, it is possible to imagine the conflict as a way of keeping the contradiction in the process of its resolution. The content of this contradiction is the subject of the conflict. Thirdly, the very understanding and interpretation of the conflict by the parties involved in it is determined not only by various personal (in the broad sense) factors, but is also mediated by the entire social environment in which the conflict unfolds. The social environment forms a potential conflict space by setting possible conflict grounds (intersections of interests and needs) that will influence the emergence and course of each specific conflict. Fourth, in a sense, the conflict can be viewed as a kind of incompleteness and insolubility of the social situation in the usual ways, which puts the conflicting parties in front of the realization of the urgent need for change in some current period of life.

Thus, conflict can be understood as an integral phenomenon that links together intrapsychic processes (experiences, emotions, perception, attitudes, etc.) with interpsychic ones (relationships, communication, etc.) in a situation of actual interaction of social subjects in the form of opposition, confrontation.

Along with the concept of "conflict", social psychology uses the terms "hostility", "rivalry", "competition", "crisis", etc., which are close in meaning, but not identical in content.

A crisis- this is a state of the system in which it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the interests of two or more groups striving for different goals. The crisis is the result of abnormal changes in the content and forms of life of social subjects of serious violations of the mechanism of social control. A crisis is often preceded and accompanied by conflicts, but not every conflict creates a crisis.

Contradiction- an objectively existing, but not always conscious, outwardly manifested state of a social system, in which the interests, goals, values of its elements or the connections between them are mismatched. Contradiction is always at the root of conflict. But conflict, unlike contradiction, is an external, subjective form of manifestation of contradiction, i.e., the opposing interaction of subjects over contradiction.

Competition- this is a special type of confrontation, the purpose of which is to obtain a one-sided advantage or access to scarce resources. In competition, the goal and end result are clearly defined and understood. Competition is one of the forms of conflict flow. Often, another term is used as a synonym for competition - "rivalry".

Competition- a more formalized and peaceful type of rivalry, in which forms and goals are clearly defined, and often written down, and the course of this interaction is of an acceptable social nature.

Hostility- this is a fixed and pronounced psychological readiness (attitude) for conflict behavior. Hostility does not always result in conflict, and not every conflict is dominated by hostility, but it is usually present.

Some Methodological Basis for the Study of Conflict in Social Psychology

It is possible to single out several levels of conflict research in social psychology, which at the same time constitute the theoretical basis for analysis and generalizations. These levels are set primarily by the established scientific tradition in the study social phenomena from the position of social psychology, expressed by its categorical apparatus and methods of research.

First of all, in society there is always a contradiction in the system "individual - social environment", which can be considered as the original. The irreducibility of the individual to the social and vice versa presupposes an initial, initial divergence in any content, for example, the content of an individual's activity, which can subsequently become the actual subject of conflict. This dichotomy is formed at the moment of a person's birth, when the symbiotic relationship between mother and child is destroyed. As a result, an ontological opposition of a person and the surrounding world occurs, in which all the resources necessary for his life activity are located.

Secondly, the individual is a part of the social structure, which can be represented as a complex system of interpenetrating subsystems, interacting social strata, intersecting social strata, etc., or, in other words, social groups. The belonging of an individual to a social group is reflected in the concept of identification, which is one of the central ones in social psychology. Attributing oneself to a specific troupe necessarily causes the formation of the phenomenon of social comparison of various groups and their representatives. In this sense, the very existence of various

groups implies a violation of social (and psychological) identity (otherness, dissimilarity arises), which is reflected in the already mentioned phenomena of “friend or foe”. This dichotomy requires the prioritization of attitudes and behavior, which, ultimately, is aimed at the social strengthening of the "own" group. At the same time, any situation of comparison and choice between different groups presupposes some meaningful difference between them, which subsequently, in special circumstances actualizing this difference, becomes the content of the conflict.

Thirdly, social behavior itself, which is inseparable from the position of mental processes, is determined (except for the initial ontogenetic predispositions) by specific social experience, which is a consequence (result) of the interaction of the individual and the environment, including social. Consolidation and repetition of behavioral acts aimed at survival is transmitted from one individual to another by the methods of persuasion, imitation, mental infection, suggestion, and, finally, learning. Here the conflict as a form of behavior based on resistance, struggle, reproduces itself as an established stereotype of real social behavior or as a form of attitudinal behavior. In other words, the social attitude as readiness for behavior is the initial generator of conflict behavior.

The realization of the fact that the individual is inseparable in his manifestations and cannot be described by a finite number of theoretical schemes, especially in the conditions of the existing heterogeneous methodological basis, makes it difficult to generalize that claims to be universal. That is, the research falls into numerous empirical areas, the results of which are poorly amenable to integration from the point of view of any one of the theoretical models.

All of the above makes the study of conflicts at the socio-psychological level very difficult. Additional difficulties arise due to the practical impossibility of reproducing the same type of conditions for the unfolding of conflicts, so such a research method as an experiment becomes extremely difficult to apply. Conflict diagnosis is also associated with significant difficulties.

It is necessary to single out socio-psychological phenomenology, actively represented in the conflict itself by such phenomena (and, accordingly, concepts) as: attitude, perception, social role, expectation (expectation), attribution. This should also include group norms and rules for the interaction of group members, collective and personal values, ideals, and more.

Let us dwell on the components (factors) that describe and determine the conflict, in particular, we will combine the sets of conflict components proposed by N. V. Grishina and N. N. Veresov:

Social component make up more objective attributes of the conflict: features of the social environment (the presence of social tensions, resources, etc.); features of the social situation formed "here and now"; formed relations of the parties to each other (relationships); the availability of space for the development of conflict; social differences of the parties (age, gender, property status, etc.).

individual component make up subjective attributes: mental readiness for conflict behavior (conflict setting); individual psychological characteristics (aggressiveness, incompetence, rigidity, etc.); socio-psychological characteristics (communicativeness, value orientations, etc.); the significance of the goal, the achieved result of the conflict.

Features of different types of conflicts

In accordance with the subjects - participants in the conflict in social psychology, the following main types are distinguished: intrapersonal; interpersonal; between the individual and the group and between the group.

Intrapersonalconflict. Here, the foundations of the conflict, often very difficult, are not different people, but confrontations in the inner world of the same person based on the choice between alternatives that often seem to him or are incompatible: needs, motives, values, feelings, etc., but also the influence of such mental formations as "SuperEgo", "Ego", "Unconscious". The cognitive dissonance described by L. Festinger can also be attributed to the category of intrapersonal conflicts.

Intrapersonal conflict takes many forms. One of the most common forms is a role conflict, when different roles of a person make conflicting demands on him. Such conflicts always arise where the existing situation, conditions or environment as a whole makes conflicting demands on the subject of activity, forcing them to show different types of social roles.

Interpersonal conflict. Traditionally, this type of conflict is considered the most common in the social environment. Interpersonal conflict can be defined as a situation of confrontation between the participants, perceived and experienced by them (or at least one of them) as a significant psychological problem that requires its resolution and causes their activity, aimed at overcoming the contradiction that has arisen and resolving the situation in the interests of both or one of them. sides.

Among the psychological causes of interpersonal conflicts, the following are usually distinguished: low communication culture, rudeness; negative attitude of the parties in relation to each other; tense relations between the parties; psychological characteristics of the participants in the interaction (increased aggressiveness, emotional instability, communicative incompetence, high self-esteem or level of claims, character accentuations).

Conflict between the individual and the group. In society, there are both formal and informal groups that establish their own norms and rules of behavior and communication. Each member of such a group must comply with them. The group considers the deviation of the individual from the accepted norms as a negative phenomenon, therefore, a conflict arises between the individual and the group. Another common conflict of this type is the conflict between the group and its leader, the leader.

Here it is necessary to highlight the significance of such a phenomenon as conformism, which consists in changing the opinion of a group member under pressure from the group itself. Conformity is one of the basic ways to overcome the contradictions and tensions that have arisen between the individual and the group, when it is the individual who copes with the resolution of the conflict situation.

Intergroup conflict. The social environment includes many formal and informal groups, between which conflicts can arise, for example, between various organizations, primary labor groups, parties, etc. Most often, intergroup conflict is the final phase of the growth of interpersonal conflict, polarizing the social environment and forming opposite "camps ". Intergroup conflicts are often caused by the incompatibility of the goals of social groups in the struggle for limited resources (power, wealth, territory, material resources, etc.), i.e., the presence of real competition.

Intergroup conflicts are accompanied by a number of phenomena studied in social psychology:

manifestations of "deindividualization", i.e., members of the group do not perceive other people as individuals, as distinctive personalities, but perceive them as members of another group, to which general negative behavior is attributed. Deindividuation contributes to the manifestation, for example, of aggressiveness towards other groups;
manifestations of group centrism in the process of social intergroup comparison, during which they evaluate their group more highly and positively, increase their prestige and at the same time belittle, devalue the other group, give it a negative assessment. Social comparison can initiate conflicts, as well as support, “justify oneself” in a conflict, since in order to win, one must evaluate oneself as a “positive group that does the right thing” and negatively evaluate the other group. Often, group leaders seek to partially or completely isolate themselves from information from a foreign party about a foreign group (the “iron curtain” phenomenon). Then it is easier to maintain conflict between one's own and other's groups. The exchange of real information about each other is useful for smoothing the conflict;
manifestations of group attribution, i.e., members of the group tend to believe that it is "the outgroup that is responsible for negative events." The explanation of the causes of events differs sharply for one's own and the outgroup: 1) internal causes are attributed to the positive behavior of one's own group and the negative behavior of the outgroup ("we do the right thing because we are good", "they act badly because they are bad"); 2) the negative behavior of one's own group and the positive behavior of the other group are explained by external causes, external circumstances. So, the attacks of one's group (negative, aggressive behavior) are explained by external reasons (“we were forced by circumstances”), and the attacks of opponents are explained by internal reasons (“they are bad people”). Constructive positive actions of a foreign group are assessed as outwardly conditioned (“they had no other choice, circumstances forced them to go to the “world””), and sometimes they are perceived as a trick, cunning (“something is wrong here, you can’t trust their “peace-loving” "suggestions"). They tend to explain even the split within their own group by the actions of a "foreign group", which "harms us, plots against us."

Summarizing the results of socio-psychological analysis of different types of conflicts, we can identify the criteria for conflict:

interdependence of the parties i.e. both sides depend on each other, the activity of one subject determines the actions of the other, and these actions cause responses of the first subject, etc.;
understanding the situation as a conflict, i.e., one or both parties evaluate other people's actions as deliberately opposing, hostile, interfering with the achievement of desired results;
choice of strategy for further behavior: the search for a compromise or a rationally acceptable solution, or the escalation of the conflict, the intensification of the struggle, for example, from a divergence of points of view (cognitive conflict) go to the struggle of individuals (interpersonal conflict), then to the struggle of groups (intergroup conflict).

Relatively intrasystem borders of the conflict, it must be said that it always occurs in a certain system: a family, a group of colleagues, a work collective, a state, an international community of countries. The identification of the intrasystemic boundaries of the conflict is associated with the definition of the conflicting parties that are its main participants, as well as the allocation of other subjects (persons or organizations) that are not directly included in the conflict, but are elements of a single system. In this case, the boundaries of the conflict in the system will depend on how many participants are involved in it.

Causes of conflicts (main conflictogens)

An important issue in the socio-psychological study of the problem of conflicts and their nature is the identification of their causes.

The most common causes of conflict are the limited resources to be allocated, the interdependence of tasks, differences in goals, differences in ideas and values, differences in behavior, incompetent communications.

The existence of more than one source of conflict increases the likelihood of a conflict situation occurring. However, even with a large opportunities conflict arises, the parties may be unwilling to respond in a way that further aggravates the situation.

Among the causes of conflicts, one can single out those that are of a specific nature, for example, manifesting themselves in organizations. Features of the emergence and course of conflict in organizational groups are determined by three points:

differences in the volume of social systems. Compared to a society, an organization is a more local and simpler system. This allows us to talk about greater, in comparison with the macro level, the manageability of the organization, and therefore about the greater possibilities of predicting conflict situations;
the role structure of organizations, the promotion of professional qualities and official position, as well as a certain “non-freedom” in the performance of their roles. The ratio of the significance of the role and personal qualities in the organization is changing not in favor of the latter. At the same time, the personal qualities and personal problems of an employee, with rare exceptions, remain significant, albeit in the so-called “removed” form. This "disguise" makes them elusive for the leader (or psychologist), however, it is unacceptable to underestimate them;
an organization is, in a sense, a "closed community". The locality of the organization, a clear distribution of roles, a single end product of labor, hierarchy, etc., make it possible to compare the psychological microclimate in it with the psychological atmosphere of the community, especially in small organizations. An employee in an organization is in full view of everyone, employees are as if bound by “mutual responsibility”, anonymity of actions is excluded, condemnation or approval of colleagues plays a decisive role not only in the psychological well-being, but also in the employee’s career.

In addition, in organizational conflicts, two features are clearly manifested, which are also characteristic of other conflicts in society. The first is reference, the cohesion of conflicting groups. In various collisions, reference groups control the behavior of all members, raising the motives of conflicts into supra-individual values. Values alienated in this way acquire an independent existence and then dominate the behavior of individuals and local groups, turning the conflict into an end in itself. The second feature is manifested in the fact that the "structural" formations of the organization are formed not only according to objective signs, but also in the form of so-called "groups of consciousness", or informal groups that unite people according to their beliefs, value orientations, moods, etc. The intertwining of objective and subjective factors makes it difficult to predict conflict groups, makes them uncertain, and their composition is quite diverse.

Features of the perception of the conflict by its participants

The problem of images of the conflict situation, available to each of the parties, began to be investigated in social psychology relatively recently. Each of the participants under the influence of various factors develops a subjective image of the conflict. This image includes: representation of opponents about themselves (their goals, motives, capabilities, etc.); about the opposing side; representation of each participant about how he is perceived by the other; about the environment in which specific relationships are formed. N. V. Grishina notes that a person does not just react to a situation, but “defines” it, at the same time defining himself in this situation, and thereby he creates, “constructs” a conflict situation. The degree of conformity of the social image of the real conflict situation may be different. Based on this, four options are distinguished for special analysis:

The conflict situation objectively exists, but is not realized, is not perceived by the participants. There is no conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon.
An objective conflict situation exists and the parties perceive the situation as a conflict situation, however, with certain significant deviations from reality (the case of an inadequately perceived conflict).
There is no objective conflict situation, but nevertheless, the relations of the parties are mistakenly perceived by them as conflict (a case of a false conflict).
The conflict situation exists and is adequately perceived by the participants in terms of key characteristics.

Of course, other options are also possible, for example, those related to differences in the degree of adequacy of the reflection of the conflict situation of each of the parties, etc.

Usually, the subjective perception of a conflict situation is characterized by a significant degree of distortion only if the subject is somehow involved in the conflict. With neutral interaction, the situation is perceived, as a rule, adequately.

There are 4 types of distortions in the perception of a conflict situation:

1. Distortion of the conflict situation as a whole. This type of distorted perception is characterized by a subjective simplification of the situation; the inability to adequately assess the situation; perception of the situation in sharply polar assessments; categorical assessments that are not amenable to revision and doubt; filtering and interpreting information only in the direction that corresponds to their prejudices.

2. Distortion of perception of motives of behavior in conflict. Own motivation, as a rule, is of a socially approved nature (the struggle for the restoration of justice, the protection of honor and dignity ...). His thoughts are evaluated as noble, goals as lofty, so the subject naturally comes to the conclusion that he is right. The opponent's motives are assessed as negative and insufficient. If, on the other hand, the perceiver is forced, due to undoubted evidence, to fix the motives of a positive direction, then obvious errors arise in the assessment of such motives.

3. Distortion of perception of actions, statements, deeds. Own position is interpreted as normatively justified and expedient. The goal is to prove one's undoubted rightness. Responsibility can be perceived in several ways: a) "I'm doing everything right"; b) “I have to do this”; c) “it is his own fault that I have to do this”; d) everyone does it.

The position of the opponent is seen as erroneous and unreasonable. Therefore, the only possible goal of the opponent, which can be recognized, is to leave and admit defeat. The actions and deeds of the opponent are usually attributed to immoral illegal content.

4. Distortion of perception of personal qualities. Self-perception is usually characterized by highlighting positive and attractive features. Comments about "unfavorable" qualities are ignored and not accepted. Emphasizing only positive qualities allows us to put forward the postulate “ good people doing good deeds." The opponent ignores the positive, intensifies the search for everything negative and unattractive. Ridicule of shortcomings is justified, insults addressed to him are allowed.

Conflict Management Methods

According to many authors, it is not so much the forms of production actions that are important as their tactical (functional or dysfunctional) consequences and strategic (aggravation or prevention of future conflicts) result. Therefore, the managerial action itself may well be conflicting: by making relations at one level dysfunctional, it can give a functional character to relations at another level. For example: some initiated conflict at the first level of the hierarchy really exacerbates the conflict of the second level, but at the same time smoothes out the conflicts of the third and, possibly, other levels.

Thus, management action in many cases is not only acceptable, but also must be perceived as a conflict, especially taking into account the fact that conflict optimization in real life is usually carried out in the interests of a particular social subject. Conflict management in a certain perspective becomes conflict management, i.e. management based on the initiation of one conflict in order to reduce another.

Currently, there are various conflict management technologies. For example, one of them: the space of conflicts contains an infinitely large set of its components, however, in each case they result in approximately the same amount. In some cases, this amount consists of a few large and extremely dangerous conflicts, while in others it is split into a huge number of minor conflicts that do not undermine the stability of the community as a whole. Initiating small conflicts, we "spray", "dissolve" in them a big conflict (both existing and potential). Frequent small conflicts relieve tension in some part of the community, and blocking, preventing such conflicts, on the contrary, increases it.

Many Western conflictologists recommend drawing up a cartogram of the conflict for effective management of conflict interaction. When compiling it, the essence of the conflict, its causes, is first determined. Next, it turns out who is involved in the conflict. To the extent that the people involved in the conflict have some common needs in relation to this conflict, they can be grouped together. Then the needs and concerns of each of the participants in the conflict situation related to this problem are determined. By graphing needs and concerns, the manager creates the conditions for a wider set of potential solutions. Drawing up a cartogram limits the discussion to certain formal boundaries, which usually helps to avoid excessive display of emotions.

In order to effectively manage the development of a conflict, it is necessary to make its diagnosis with maximum accuracy. The ideal is to perceive the conflict as it really is. Achieving a correspondence between the subjective assessment of this conflict by the leader and the state of the objective development of the confrontation is a serious task, which can be very difficult to solve in practice.

Underestimation of the conflict can lead to the fact that its analysis will be carried out superficially, and the proposals made on the basis of such an analysis will turn out to be of little use. Underestimation of the conflict can have objective and subjective reasons. Objective - depend on the state of information and communication systems, and subjective - on the inability or unwillingness of the subject (or subjects) to properly assess the conflict situation.

Harmful is not only an underestimation, but also an overestimation of the confrontation that has arisen. In this case, much more effort is being made than is really necessary. Overestimation of a particular conflict or reinsurance regarding the possibility of a conflict incident can lead to the discovery of a conflict where it actually does not exist. This often contributes to the artificial generation of imaginary conflicts or situations in which people begin to see the existence of conflicts in insignificant contradictions and disputes. This leads to negative consequences, gives rise to mutual distrust, suspicion, etc. In the literature and in practice, the method of analyzing tension and predicting conflicts by measuring the degree of dissatisfaction (working conditions, living conditions, existing relationships, status, etc.) is becoming more widespread. ). This method was developed by Nizhnekamsk sociologists and was first used in the chemical industry to warn managers about possible sources of discontent. Methodologically, this method means the use of a self-negating forecast, i.e. a forecast that must be refuted by practice and not come true.

Dissatisfaction is considered in social psychology as a universal indicator of conflict. Its main advantage is its measurability. Of course, this indicator has evaluative power only in combination with other signs of conflict. Dissatisfaction, determined by surveys, is compared with the identification of the living conditions of subjects that objectively put them before the need for counteraction and confrontation. An important role is played by the manifestations of dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction is limited to conversations between its carriers in a narrow circle of colleagues, then the danger of conflicts is still small. Another thing is if behavioral dissatisfaction manifests itself in non-fulfillment of labor duties, in obstructions to management, mass layoffs, strikes, etc. An indicator of dissatisfaction is also the mass coverage, i.e. the real number of people expressing dissatisfaction.

educational impact, convincing conflicting subjects of the commonality of their goals, proof of mutual benefit from joint work and a common result;
division of the object of the dispute: an assignment to each of the conflicting subjects to resolve another, no less important issue, while the disputed issue is transferred to a third party for decision;
organizational arrangements: the creation of a so-called "organizational buffer" that eliminates frequent direct contacts.

The process of conflict management largely depends on the position that a person takes, on his own interests, as well as on what means he resorts to in order to prevent the conflict from escalating. In the choice of these means, the leader is not always sufficiently free. At his disposal can be very limited opportunities counter the emerging conflict. At least two circumstances are recommended to be taken into account in almost any conflict situation: firstly, the reaction that one or another of the measures taken can cause from both the direct participants in the conflict and the forces observing temporary neutrality; secondly, the moral norms, habits and customs that prevail in a particular organization and regulate the behavior of people in normal situations and in situations of conflict. It is necessary to take into account real possibilities, a specific situation and group opinion, to avoid both too weak and too strong means of influence.

At present, the problem of conflict management is usually solved not directly, but through intermediaries. Mediation is most often used to resolve high-level conflicts. The role of a third party in a conflict can be played not only by individuals (by the way, professional psychologists very often become them), but also by various institutions and organizations. Ideally, he should have a recognized authority, impeccable morality, be neutral and professionally competent, and have high social intelligence.

The main functions of the mediator have also developed:

firstly, it ensures the involvement of the parties in the negotiations, and in an impasse, when the parties refuse to meet, the implementation of contacts between them;
secondly, acting as a neutral person, the mediator must remove or minimize the emotional tension of the parties to ensure the normal course of negotiations;
thirdly, at separate meetings, the mediator encourages the conflicting parties to carefully evaluate new proposals and alternative solutions, including those put forward by the mediator himself, and each of the parties, in fact, negotiates with the mediator himself, as if representing the other side (the mediator tries to point out overstated claims of each negotiator);
fourthly, the mediator seeks to find solutions that would satisfy the group opinion that develops around the conflict in a larger community than the conflicting ones;
fifthly, if the conflict seems unresolvable, the mediator can offer the necessary, in his opinion, alternative to extreme forms of confrontation, for example: extend the validity of the existing agreement, create a conciliation group (committee) to study the conflict, offer the services of other third parties (for example, arbitration), etc.

Conclusion

The content of conflict research in social psychology has much in common with those in sociology, political science, and other social sciences. The specificity, in our opinion, lies in the fact that in social psychology the emphasis is on a finer differentiation of various states of a group that are close or similar to conflict states. A special analysis showed that four interrelated and at the same time relatively independent states can be distinguished, which are studied in social psychology: socio-psychological contradiction, socio-psychological tension of the group, psychological readiness of an individual or group subject for conflict behavior and conflict behavior itself. Each of the identified phenomena can exist as an autonomous and have different intensity of their expression in different groups, while the group does not pass from one state to another. However, the same socio-psychological states can act as stages, or stages, of the group’s movement towards conflict: from awareness of the contradiction to tension, from it to the formation of a social attitude towards conflict behavior, and then to the conflict itself. Moreover, different groups go through these stages-states at different speeds.

In general, the dynamics of the conflict itself is of particular interest in social psychology, in which the phenomena of group dynamics have traditionally been one of the central ones. social problems research. Such interest is explained by the unclear role of socio-psychological mechanisms in the development of conflicts: there is a lot of incomprehensible, on the one hand, in the different intensity of the implementation of the same forms of conflict behavior by different subjects, and on the other hand, the reasons for the transitions of the same subjects to qualitatively different forms of conflict behavior, the use of which actually transfers the conflict to a new stage, including its escalation. It is social psychologists who find out the role in the dynamics of the conflict of such numerous mechanisms as: suggestion, persuasion, mental infection, imitation, coercion, identification, projection, etc.

In social psychology, to a greater extent, it is not a general theoretical approach to conflicts that is being developed, but rather a typological one, which is why the numerous differentiations of conflicts into various types, types, etc., are so important, and for a variety of reasons-criteria. This is due to the fact that the socio-psychological nature of the conflict is very “sensitive” to a change in the type of conflict, therefore it is fundamentally important to divide conflicts according to their subjects into intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup and between an individual and a group, etc. Socio-psychological mechanisms work fundamentally according to differently in the listed or some other types of conflicts. Leading here may be not so much general patterns as features, i.e., typological in this case.

Great importance in social psychology is given to the question of socio-psychological (personal and group) factors that contribute to and hinder the conflict behavior of subjects. Among them, the most important place is occupied by personal properties and states, which are called conflictogenic, and many studies are aimed at searching for them. Much is already clear about the role of aggressiveness and, conversely, tolerance of the individual; communication incompetence; inadequate (especially overestimated) levels of self-esteem and claims; low social intelligence, which does not always correlate with general intelligence; different types of psychological accentuations and sociopsychopathies, etc.

The results of special studies of the socio-psychological consequences of conflicts in groups convince us not only of their unambiguously negative nature, but also of their constructiveness. This is especially true for the effectiveness of creative types of joint activities, for example: scientific, artistic, etc. Therefore, in recent decades, many qualifications of the conflict have appeared in the socio-psychological literature, such as: reasonable, rational, useful, positive, constructive, developing, etc. All this also determined new promising areas of research, from which new interesting results should be expected in the near future.

The participation of practical social psychologists in conflict resolution has more in common with representatives of other social sciences, and above all with sociologists, than specifics. This is explained by the fact that practical tasks are always complex tasks, therefore they require either the integration of knowledge of various sciences, or the unification of the efforts of their representatives (the latter is somewhat more complicated), which makes the work of different specialists similar in practice. However, it is necessary to say about one feature of the work of practical psychologists. The psychologist organizes the work in such a way that the participants themselves become the main actors in resolving conflicts: through the awareness of contradictions as the subject of the conflict, through the inner work of the individual, reflection in his mind of his own behavior, and not just other participants in the conflict, through the perception of the other as himself, etc. But there are two serious limitations in this: firstly, such methods of resolving conflicts work most effectively on reflective personalities, and not all of them turn out to be such; Secondly, psychological methods conflict resolution in the vast majority of conflict situations can only act as a complement to other methods. By themselves, they rarely lead to a sustainable (not temporary or situational) resolution of interpersonal and, even more so, intergroup conflicts.

In recent years, many publications devoted to conflict management have been published in conflictology in general, and disputes around this issue have not ceased in social psychology. The terms initiated, managed, controlled, planned, organized, projected and other conflicts are firmly fixed. Social psychologists have known this form of practical work with groups since the 1930s. XX century, from the so-called method of "explosion" of the group, successfully used by A. S. Makarenko to change negative informal leaders in youth groups. Since that time, both the high labor intensity and the riskiness of such methods have been well known. But no matter how many such technologies of controlled conflicts are developed, they always remain very difficult even for a single application, and even more so impossible for widespread use. And this is for the best, because here not only narrowly professional questions arise, but above all ethical ones: about the moral right of the organizer (and now they are already saying “designer”) to provoke a conflict situation and include various people in it, actually manipulating them. But ethical issues are usually resolved in favor of professional ones, although in no case should the question of responsibility for the negative consequences of projected conflicts be removed. And they are real and dangerous, both on the personal and group levels.

And the last. Speaking about the specifics of the socio-psychological analysis of the conflict, one cannot help but raise the question of the significance of the situational approach. For a social psychologist, conflict is not an abstract phenomenon, it is always concrete, mediated by individuals, a group, a situation, and thus does not repeat itself from situation to situation, but is in its own way single and unique in each specific social situation.

Grishina N.V.
Lorenz K. Aggression (the so-called "evil"). M., 1994.
Hasan B.I. Psychotechnics of conflict and conflict competence. Krasnoyarsk, 1996.
Grishina N. B. Psychology of conflict. SPb., 2000.
Veresov N. N. The formula of confrontation, or how to eliminate conflict in a team. M., 1998.
FestingerL. Theory of cognitive dissonance. SPb., 1999.
Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. SPb., 2000.
Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. SPb., 2000.

In the article by Lopatin M.V. the concept of conflicts that directly and indirectly affect the quality of managerial work is presented. From the point of view of this concept, the main characteristics of the quality of managerial work are formulated, the factors on which the quality of management depends, and the main ways of managing conflicts are listed.

Shulgin D.B. considers the application of approaches and theories of conflict in the practice of Russian universities.

Shilo I.N. in his work, he conducts a sociological study of conflicts in organizations, gives recommendations on managing conflicts and resolving them.

Zheltukhin A.I. considers the evolution of the concepts of conflict, gives a general idea of the development of conflictology.

The problem of managing industrial conflicts was studied by scientists in their various aspects: in management theory (P.F. Drucker, S. Bowers, T. Leimdorfer, D. Steiner, F.W. Taylor, L. Gilbert, G. Gantta, etc.) ; in management psychology (N.N. Rudenko, G.S. Nikiforov, S.I. Makshanov, L.A. Petrovskaya, R. Fisher, U. Yurii, etc.); in management (V.N. Shcherbak, M. Meskon, M. Albert, F. Hedouri, M.M. Rybakova, Yu.G. Zaprudsky), in conflictology (A.V. Dmitriev, E.A. Utkin, D (Scott, L. Coser, V.P. Ratnikov, G.I. Kozyrev, etc.).

The concept of conflict. Conflict situation. The structure of the conflict. Types of conflict

The essence of the conflict can be defined as the lack of agreement between two or more parties, which may be specific individuals or groups. Each of the parties involved in the conflict does everything so that its point of view or goal is accepted, and prevents the other side from doing the same. Conflict is usually associated with aggression, threats, arguments, hostility, tension and other emotionally negative phenomena. There is an opinion that the conflict is always undesirable, that it must be resolved immediately, because it destroys human relationships, and therefore negatively affects the results of joint work.

The structure of the conflict can be represented schematically (Fig. 1.1., Appendix).

Modern management science recognizes that conflict is an integral part of the life of an organization. Many leaders either seek to suppress conflicts or do not want to get involved in them. Both positions are erroneous, because they lead to significant costs in the activities of the organization. The first position can prevent the development of necessary, useful for the organization of conflicts. The second - gives the opportunity to freely develop those conflicts that harm the organization as a whole and the people working in it, in particular.

Modern management science proposes to consider the conflict not as an anomaly, dysfunction in the activities of organizations, but as the norm of relations between people, a necessary element of production life, which gives way to socio-psychological tension, generating changes in the activities of the organization. Cram T.F. Conflict energy management / How to turn work into creativity: Per. from English. Moscow: Refl_Book, 2003. - S. 74

Translated from Latin, the meaning of the word conflict is clash. And following the meaning of this term, the English sociologist E. Giddens gives the following definition of conflict: “By conflict, I mean a real struggle between acting people or groups, regardless of the origins of this struggle and the means mobilized by each of the parties.” Zheltukhin A.I. Sociological concept of conflict // Sociological research. 2003. No. 4. S. 140-144.

Russian conflictologists F. M. Borodkin and N. M. Koryak clarify the concept of conflict. In their opinion, conflict is the activity of people, and, therefore, always involves the pursuit of a goal. As conflicting parties, according to Borodkin, one can single out only those that are capable of expedient, conscious behavior, that is, of understanding their position, planning their actions, and conscious use of means. It follows that the conflicting parties must necessarily be active subjects. And this makes it possible to separate the real participants in the conflict from such individuals and groups that act as tools, tools, means of struggle for any subjects of conflict interaction. Borodkin F.M. Theory of conflict. - M.: Norma, 2001. - S. 145.

Individuals, social groups, divisions of the organization can act as subjects of conflict interaction in an organization. In this case, conflictology designates them as opponents. Vorozheikin I.E., Kibanov A.Ya., Zakharov D.K. Conflictology: Textbook.- M.: Infra-M, 2003 -224s.

Summarizing the variety of definitions of conflict found in the literature, we can offer such a definition.

A conflict is a confrontation between social actors in order to realize their conflicting interests, positions, values and views. And in this, and in many other definitions, the conflict is primarily associated with a contradiction or one of its moments - the struggle of opposites. One of the essential signs of conflict is the opposition of interests, which in turn are associated with values, goals and orientations. Thus, interests are the main concept necessary for the analysis of the conflict.

Any conflict is characterized by conflicting parties, as well as the subject of confrontation.

The structure of the conflict also includes a conflict action in one form or another and the consciousness that directs it, the means and methods of action, the field of conflict. In addition, not a single conflict is possible without a conflict situation that has developed before its occurrence.

The subjects of the conflict, depending on its level, are individuals, groups, classes, national-ethnic communities, organizations, social institutions, public and political associations, states, international communities. The subjects of the conflict do not remain unchanged in the process of confrontation. The dynamics of the conflict is directly related to the development of its subjects, and vice versa. If the conflict develops into a different qualitative state, the opposing sides change qualitatively accordingly. Lopatin M.V. Deconflict management processes as an indicator of the quality of managerial work // Universitetskoe upravlenie. December 2005. No. 4(37). S. 97.

To analyze the conflict, its dynamics, it is important to distinguish between the subject that initiates the conflict action and the one that dominates this action. Moreover, it is not always the same subject. The agent who provoked the conflict situation often turns out to be not the leading, not the determining one, but the follower, determined by the party. A change in the balance of opposing forces is one of the patterns of conflict, especially class conflict, and international conflict as well. For military conflicts, this is the rule, although there have been many wars in history without winners.

The material or spiritual object of social life, in relation to which the opposite direction of people's activity is formed, is the subject of the conflict. Social Technologies of Conflict Management / « social management and social engineering. Tutorial. - M .: Publishing House "Soyuz" MGSU, 2003, 2 . - p. 31

In a conflict, along with the real subject of confrontation, an imaginary, so to speak, quasi-object may appear.

The real object is often hidden for the time being. The subject of the conflict is its source. The subject of the conflict is the variable that characterizes any conflict. Its analysis is always necessary, whatever the conflict relationship. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Peter", 2002. - S. 49-50

The behavior and actions of the subjects are directed by the conflict consciousness. It is formed by a special state of public consciousness, the specificity of which lies in the awareness by the opposing sides of the opposition of their interests, values, goals and their transformation into a motivation for activity.

Any conflict arises, proceeds and is resolved against the background of a conflict situation. The latter is an integral part of the conflict, an essential element of its structure.

The conflict situation includes, first of all, an acute form of contradiction, which forms the basis of the conflict; precisely one in which both opposites or one of them can no longer exist within the framework of the former interconnection, unity. One side or both are not satisfied, for example, with social status, the level of participation in the power system, the ability to access the distribution of benefits, etc. The presence of a conflict situation testifies to the formed conflictogenic factors, indicates the appearance of the initiator of the conflict (leader, group, organization), as well as the readiness to support him from other subjects with an established conflict mindset. The conflict situation is stimulated by crisis phenomena. Crises in society can act as a condition for the emergence of a conflict situation, or be the background against which conflicts unfold. Dmitriev A., Kudryavtsev V., Kudryavtsev S. Introduction to the general theory of conflicts. Legal conflictology. M., 2005. - p. 60

Conflict behavior is actions aimed at directly or indirectly blocking the achievement by the opposing side of its goals, intentions, interests. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Piter", 2002. - S. 50

The consequences of conflict can be functional or dysfunctional (destructive). Among the functional consequences, one can single out: the search and development of a mutually acceptable solution, the removal of hostility, injustice of conflicting people, detente, the emergence of conditions for cooperation, creativity, mutual understanding, analysis of problems and the development of various options for their solutions.

Dysfunctional consequences of conflicts: dissatisfaction of people, their poor health, increased turnover of personnel, reduced cooperation, excessively strong loyalty to one's group and the manifestation of unproductive competition with other groups, the perception of the other side as an “enemy”, a decrease in communication relations up to their complete disappearance, shifting emphasis - giving more importance to "winning" the conflict than solving the problem.