This type of conflict is perhaps the most common. Interpersonal conflicts can be viewed as a clash of personalities in the process of their relationship. Such clashes can occur in a wide variety of spheres and areas (economic, political, industrial, socio-cultural, domestic, etc.). “Most often it arises due to a shortage of some kind of resources, for example, the presence of one prestigious vacancy with several candidates for it.”

“Interpersonal conflict is understood as an open clash of interacting subjects based on the contradictions that have arisen, acting as opposite goals that are incompatible in a particular situation. Interpersonal conflict is manifested in the interaction between two or more persons. In interpersonal conflicts, subjects confront each other and sort out their relationship directly, face to face.

Interacting with other people, a person primarily protects his personal interests, and this is normal. The resulting conflicts are a reaction to obstacles to achieving goals. And on how significant the subject of the conflict seems to be for a particular individual, his conflict setting will largely depend.

Individuals face in interpersonal conflicts, protecting not only their personal interests. They can also represent the interests of individual groups, institutions, organizations, labor collectives, society as a whole. In such interpersonal conflicts, the intensity of the struggle and the possibility of finding compromises are largely determined by the conflict attitudes of those social groups whose representatives are opponents.

“All interpersonal conflicts arising from the clash of goals and interests can be divided into three main types.

The first one presupposes a fundamental clash, in which the realization of the goals and interests of one opponent can be achieved only at the expense of infringing on the interests of another.

The second - affects only the form of relations between people, but at the same time does not infringe on their spiritual, moral and material needs and interests.

The third one is an imaginary contradiction that can be provoked either by false (distorted) information, or by an incorrect interpretation of events and facts.

“Interpersonal conflicts can also be divided into the following types:

§ rivalry - the desire for dominance;

§ dispute - disagreement about finding the best solution to joint problems;

§ discussion - discussion of a controversial issue.

Any conflict resolution or prevention is aimed at preserving the existing system of interpersonal interaction. However, the source of the conflict may be such reasons that lead to the destruction of the existing system of interaction. In this regard, there are various functions of the conflict: constructive and destructive.

Structural features include:

§ cognitive (the appearance of a conflict acts as a symptom of dysfunctional relationships and a manifestation of the contradictions that have arisen);

§ development function (conflict is an important source of development of its participants and improvement of the interaction process);

§ instrumental (the conflict acts as a tool for resolving contradictions);

§ perestroika (conflict removes factors that undermine existing interpersonal interactions, promotes the development of mutual understanding between participants).

The destructive functions of conflict are associated with

§ destruction of existing joint activities;

§ deterioration or collapse of relations;

§ negative well-being of the participants;

§ low efficiency of further interaction, etc.

This side of the conflict causes people to have a negative attitude towards them, and they try to avoid them.

In a systematic study of conflicts, the structure and elements are distinguished in them. The elements of interpersonal conflict are: the subjects of the conflict, their personal characteristics, goals and motives, supporters, the cause of the conflict. The structure of the conflict is the relationship between its elements. The conflict is always in development, so its elements and structure are constantly changing.

The conflict itself consists of three periods:

1. pre-conflict (the emergence of an objective problem situation, awareness of an objective problem situation, attempts to solve the problem in non-conflict ways, pre-conflict situation);

2. conflict (incident, escalation, balanced counteraction, end of the conflict);

3. post-conflict situation (partial normalization of relations, full normalization of relations).

For the emergence of interpersonal conflict, the presence of contradictions (objective or imaginary) is necessary. The contradictions that have arisen due to a discrepancy in the views and assessments of people on a variety of phenomena lead to a situation of dispute. If it poses a threat to one of the participants, then a conflict situation arises.

The conflict situation is characterized by the presence of opposite goals and aspirations of the parties to master one object.

In a conflict situation, the subjects and object of the conflict are identified.
The subjects of interpersonal conflict include those participants who defend their own interests, strive to achieve their goal. They always speak for themselves.

The object of interpersonal conflict is what its participants claim. This is the goal that each of the opposing subjects strives to achieve. For example, a husband or wife claims sole control over the family budget. In this case, the object of disagreement may be the family budget, if the opposing party considers its rights infringed. The subject of the conflict in such a situation are contradictions, in which the opposite interests of the husband and wife are manifested. In the above case, the subject will be the desire of the spouses to master the right to manage the family budget, i.e. the problem of mastering the object, the claims that the subjects present to each other.

Every interpersonal conflict eventually has its resolution. The forms of their resolution depend on the behavioral style of the subjects in the process of conflict development. This part of the conflict is called the emotional side and is considered the most important.

Researchers distinguish the following styles of behavior in interpersonal conflict: confrontation, evasion, adaptation, compromise, cooperation, assertiveness.

1. Confrontation - a characteristically persistent, uncompromising, non-cooperative defense of one's interests, for which all available means are used.

2. Evasion - associated with an attempt to get away from the conflict, not attaching great value to it, perhaps due to the lack of conditions for its resolution.

3. Adaptation - implies the willingness of the subject to give up their interests in order to maintain relationships that are placed above the subject and object of disagreement.

4. Compromise - requires concessions from both sides to the extent that through mutual concessions, an acceptable solution is found for the opposing parties.

5. Cooperation - involves the joint performance of the parties to solve the problem. With such behavior, different views on the problem are considered legitimate. This position makes it possible to understand the causes of disagreements and find a way out of the crisis acceptable to the opposing sides without infringing on the interests of each of them.

6. Assertive behavior (from the English. assert - assert, defend). Such behavior implies the ability of a person to defend his interests and achieve his goals without prejudice to the interests of other people. It is aimed at ensuring that the realization of one's own interests is a condition for the realization of the interests of interacting subjects. Assertiveness is an attentive attitude both to oneself and to a partner. Assertive behavior prevents the emergence of conflicts, and in a conflict situation helps to find the right way out of it. At the same time, the greatest efficiency is achieved when one assertive person interacts with another such person.

All of these styles of behavior can be both spontaneous and consciously used to achieve the desired results in resolving interpersonal conflicts.

https://sites.google.com/site/conflictrussian/home/mezlicnostnyjkonflikt

Similar information.

Definition of interpersonal conflict

Interpersonal conflict [from lat. conflictus - clash] - a clash of opposing goals, motives, points of view of the interests of the participants in the interaction [Myers, 12]. In essence, this is the interaction of people either pursuing mutually exclusive or unattainable goals simultaneously by both conflicting parties, or striving to realize incompatible values ​​and norms in their relationships. In socio-psychological science, as a rule, such structural components of interpersonal conflict as a conflict situation, conflict interaction, conflict resolution are considered. At the heart of any interpersonal conflict lies the conflict situation that has developed even before it began. Here we can see both the participants in a possible future interpersonal clash and the subject of their disagreement. In many studies devoted to the problems of interpersonal conflict, it is shown that the conflict situation implies the orientation of its participants to achieve not common, but individual goals. This determines the possibility of an interpersonal conflict, but does not yet predetermine its obligatory nature. In order for an interpersonal conflict to become a reality, it is necessary for its future participants to realize, on the one hand, the current situation as generally meeting their individual goals, and on the other hand, these goals as incompatible and mutually exclusive. But until this happens, one of the potential opponents may change its position, and the object itself, about which differences of opinion have arisen, may lose its significance for one, or even for both sides. If the acuteness of the situation disappears in this way, the interpersonal conflict, which, it would seem, inevitably had to unfold, having lost its objective foundations, simply will not arise. So, for example, at the heart of most conflict situations, the participants of which are a teacher and a student, most often there is a discrepancy, and sometimes even a direct opposite, of their positions and views on learning and the rules of behavior at school.

Interpersonal conflict is manifested in the interaction between two or more persons. In interpersonal conflicts, subjects confront each other and sort out their relationship directly, face to face. This is one of the most common types of conflicts. They can occur both between colleagues and between the closest people.

In an interpersonal conflict, each side seeks to defend its opinion, to prove the other one wrong, people resort to mutual accusations, attacks on each other, verbal abuse and humiliation, etc. Such behavior causes acute negative emotional experiences in the subjects of the conflict, which aggravate the interaction of the participants and provoke them to extreme actions. In conflict, it becomes difficult to manage your emotions. Many of its participants experience negative health for a long time after the resolution of the conflict.

Interpersonal conflict reveals the lack of agreement in the existing system of interaction between people. They have opposing opinions, interests, points of view, views on the same problems, which at the appropriate stage of the relationship disrupt normal interaction, when one of the parties begins to purposefully act to the detriment of the other, and the latter, in turn, realizes that these actions infringe on its interests, and takes retaliatory actions. This situation most often leads to conflict as a means of resolving it. The full resolution of the conflict will be carried out when the opposing sides together quite consciously eliminate the causes that gave rise to it. If the conflict is resolved by the victory of one of the parties, then such a state will be temporary and the conflict will necessarily declare itself in some form under favorable circumstances.

Any conflict resolution or prevention is aimed at preserving the existing system of interpersonal interaction. However, the source of the conflict may be such reasons that lead to the destruction of the existing system of interaction. In this regard, there are various functions of the conflict: constructive and destructive.

Structural features include:

* cognitive (the appearance of a conflict acts as a symptom of dysfunctional relationships and manifestations of the contradictions that have arisen);

* development function (conflict is an important source of development of its participants and improvement of the interaction process);

* instrumental (the conflict acts as a tool for resolving contradictions);

* perestroika (conflict removes factors that undermine existing interpersonal interactions, promotes the development of mutual understanding between participants).

The destructive functions of conflict are associated with

* destruction of existing joint activities;

* deterioration or collapse of relations;

* negative well-being of the participants;

* low efficiency of further interaction, etc.

This side of the conflict causes people to have a negative attitude towards them and they try to avoid them.

The structure of the conflict.

In a systematic study of conflicts, the structure and elements are distinguished in them. The elements in an interpersonal conflict are: the subjects of the conflict, their personal characteristics, goals and motives, supporters, the cause of the conflict. The structure of the conflict is the relationship between its elements. The conflict is always in development, so its elements and structure are constantly changing.

It can be noted that the most significant of a number of unresolved problems should, in our opinion, include the difficulties associated with the definition of the concept of conflict and its correlation with other concepts and phenomena of the mental life of a person close to it. The analysis of the understanding of the conflict and the nature of this phenomenon in various areas of classical psychology has enriched our understanding of psychological conflicts, but has not removed the problem of defining the concept, moreover, it has even complicated it. The authors of the generalizing publication on the problems of constructive conflict management (Constructive Conflict Management ... 1994) are forced to start with the question of definition. They note that current definitions of conflict emphasize either incompatibility of actions (which, as we have seen, is characteristic of the situational approach) or a perceived difference of interests or beliefs (which is characteristic of cognitivists). The definition of conflict, in their opinion, with which it is difficult to disagree, should include both behavioral, and cognitive, and affective components as present in any conflict and significant for it. A. Ya. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1999), in their review of works on conflictological issues, tried to compare various definitions of conflict in Russian psychology, solving the same problem that Western sociologists once set themselves in relation to to social conflicts. Like Mack and Snyder, they conclude that there is no established, generally accepted understanding of conflicts. The authors analyzed 52 definitions of conflicts belonging to domestic psychologists. The definitions of intrapersonal conflict are based on two key concepts: in some definitions, the conflict is interpreted as a contradiction between different sides of the personality, in others - as a clash, a struggle of personal tendencies. The generalization of the definitions of interpersonal conflict made it possible to identify the following main properties: the presence of a contradiction between interests, values, goals, motives as the basis of the conflict; opposition of the subjects of the conflict; the desire by any means to cause maximum damage to the opponent, his interests; negative emotions and feelings towards each other (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1992). An analysis of most specific definitions demonstrates either their vulnerability or narrowness, which does not satisfy the existing varieties of psychological conflicts (at least two of its main varieties - intrapersonal and interpersonal). And the first domestic "Psychotherapeutic Encyclopedia" (1998) does not include in the circle of defined concepts such as "conflict", "crisis" or, for example, "problem", which are so widely used in practical work. Let us turn to our preliminary selection in the introduction of a number of features that, on the basis of various sources, were designated as invariant, that is, necessarily encountered in various interpretations of the conflict.

Recall that they included bipolarity as a confrontation between two principles; activity aimed at overcoming contradictions; the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of the conflict. Let us consider whether these signs satisfy the psychological understanding of conflicts, taking into account the ideas of different psychological trends. Bipolarity as the presence and opposition of two principles is necessarily present in any psychological conflict. Whether we are talking about an intrapersonal conflict, interpersonal or intergroup - in any case, there are two instances in the conflict, opposing each other. Activity aimed at overcoming a contradiction is also characteristic of any conflict and, apparently, in different designations, is present in all definitions of a conflict (which is not surprising: remember that, by its very origin, the word "conflict" is a collision). This activity is called "collision", "incompatibility", "opposition", etc.

It is this characterization of conflicts that was at one time the subject of

disputes between conflictologists who could not decide whether this feature is mandatory or whether the presence of negative feelings can already be considered a conflict. L. Koser objected to the identification of conflict with hostile attitudes: "The difference between conflict and hostile feelings is significant. Conflict, unlike hostile attitudes or feelings, always takes place in the interaction between two or more people. Hostile attitudes are predispositions to the emergence of conflict behavior; conflict in contrast, there is always an interaction" (Coser, 1986). At present, according to G. M. Andreeva, the debatable question of whether “the conflict is only a form of psychological antagonism (i.e., the representation of a contradiction in consciousness) or is it necessarily the presence of conflict actions” can be considered resolved in favor of that "both evoked components are obligatory signs of a conflict" (Andreeva, 1994).

Indeed, the contradictions between people, the disagreements that have arisen between them, no matter how significant they may be, will not necessarily take the form of a conflict. When does the situation begin to develop as a conflict? If a person, perceiving the current situation as unacceptable for him, begins to do something to change it - he explains his point of view to his partner, trying to convince him, goes to complain about him to someone, demonstrates his dissatisfaction, etc. All this is calculated to the partner's response and is aimed at changing the situation. Is this sign - activity aimed at overcoming contradictions - mandatory for conflicts that develop not in interpersonal situations, but in the inner world of a person, at an intrapersonal level? By itself, bipolarity does not yet mean a clash of sides. Many contradictions live in each of us - the desire for closeness with other people and the desire for autonomy, isolation of our individuality, high and low, good and evil coexist in us, etc. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are constantly because of this, in conflict with himself. However, when for one reason or another these contradictions become aggravated, a “struggle” begins, a search, sometimes painful, for a solution, a way to overcome this contradiction, a way out of it. The carrier of the conflict is the subject or subjects. Another sign of conflict was originally designated by us as the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of the conflict. Its selection was determined by the need to limit our understanding of the conflict from its metaphorical use. The simplest interpretation of this feature means that conflict is a "human" phenomenon. Psychologists do not need this clarification (the exception is the attribution of the properties of conflict to the phenomenon of struggle in the animal world, which, in our opinion, is deeply erroneous, because it deprives the phenomenon of conflict of its value-normative characteristics, its "sociality"). However, the subject is not just a human individual; this characteristic focuses on his endowment with consciousness and will (in the traditional philosophical and psychological understanding), on his ability to take active and conscious actions.

Activity was noted by us above as one of the attributive signs of the conflict. It develops as a consequence of the awareness of the existence of a contradiction and the need to overcome it. If a person does not perceive the existing contradiction (in his own aspirations, in relations with other people, etc.) as a problem that needs to be solved, then there is no psychological conflict. The foregoing, of course, does not mean the need for adequate awareness of the problem that has arisen, it can be experienced in the form of emotional discomfort, tension, anxiety, i.e., in one way or another, give rise to the need to overcome it. Equally, regardless of what might be called an "objective view", if a person perceives as a problem something in his relationships with other people or what is happening in his soul, he will experience it as a problem requiring his own solutions.

At first glance, the exception is the psychoanalytic interpretation of the conflict as an unconscious human phenomenon (pathogenic, according to Freud, and neurotic, according to Horney). However, we are talking about problems repressed from consciousness, therefore, it would be more accurate to talk about conflicts that have acquired an unconscious character as a result of certain internal work aimed at their displacement and suppression, and their resolution presupposes their awareness.

We have considered those signs of conflict that were originally singled out to characterize this phenomenon and which, in our opinion, are in full agreement with both psychological phenomenology and the ideas that exist in theoretical psychology. Is there some unmarked sign left outside our consideration? Referring to the definitions of the conflict by other authors shows that the attributive features proposed by us match or largely coincide with the views of specialists or, in any case, do not contradict them. But there is one characteristic of conflict that deserves special discussion. These are negative actions or negative feelings, characteristics often included in conflict definitions. Consider, as an example, the two definitions already given. One of them is the classic and, perhaps, the most common definition of L. Kozer, widely used in the literature. It refers to social conflict, but, as is known, in the Western tradition the concept of social conflict is used quite widely, including in relation to interpersonal situations. So, according to Coser, "social conflict can be defined as a struggle over values ​​or claims to status, power or limited resources, in which the goals of the conflicting parties are not only to achieve the desired, but also to neutralize, damage or eliminate the rival" ( Coser, 1968, p. 232). In this definition, the parties act as opponents seeking to neutralize each other. But this is at best, and at worst, aggressive components are directly included in the definition of a conflict (“damaging or eliminating an opponent”). The second definition belongs to the domestic authors Antsupov and Shipilov, who performed a huge analytical work to clarify the conceptual scheme of the conflict: "Conflict is understood as the most acute way of resolving significant contradictions that arise in the process of interaction, which consists in the opposition of subjects and is usually accompanied by negative emotions" (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1999). In a recent edition, they clarify their definition: conflict is "the most destructive way of developing and completing significant contradictions that arise in the process of social interaction, as well as the struggle under personality structures" (Antsupov, Shipilov, 2006, p. 158), but they make the following reservation. If in the course of the conflict there is a counteraction of the subjects, but they do not experience mutual negative emotions, or, on the contrary, experiencing such, they do not oppose each other, then the authors consider such situations to be pre-conflict. And intrapersonal conflict is understood as "a negative experience caused by a protracted struggle between the structures of the inner world of the individual" (Antsupov, Shipilov, 2006, p. 158). We are talking about a fundamental issue - the inclusion of negative actions (as in Kozer) or negative feelings (as in Antsupov and Shipilov) into the concept of conflict as its obligatory feature. Coser's definition was proposed by him 30 years ago during the formation of conflictology; the definition of Antsupov and Shipilov is one of the latest. Recall that the early philosophical and sociological tradition, as well as the psychological one (psychoanalysis), was characterized by an emphasis on the destructive, destructive aspects of the conflict, which led to its overall negative assessment. From a psychological point of view, adhering to any of these definitions, we would also be forced to consider conflict as a negative phenomenon.

Undoubtedly, the conflict is accompanied by a variety of experiences: you can experience a feeling of annoyance, experience difficulties that have arisen, a feeling of incomprehension, injustice, etc. However, does it necessarily contain hostility towards a partner or a desire to harm him?

The authors of a publication devoted to constructive conflict management (Constructive Conflict Management ... 1994) believe that this concept is characterized by a wider scope than the concept of aggression, and that a conflict can proceed without aggression. The latter can be a way of influencing the participants in the conflict on each other, can lead to its destructive development, however, in the modern interpretation, the conflict can develop without mutual hostility of the participants or their destructive actions. This just gives reason to hope for the possibility of constructive conflict management.

Most of the above definitions dealt with interpersonal conflicts. If we hope to be able to create a universal definition of conflict that corresponds to at least two of its main psychological varieties - interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict, then it must contain features that are relevant for conflicts of both types. It is hardly legitimate, among the various feelings experienced by a person in a situation of existential or any other internal conflict, to focus on hostility or aggression towards oneself.

Thus, it seems to us that the inclusion of aggression (in the form of actions or hostile feelings) in the list of signs of a conflict leads to a narrowing of the scope of the concept and thereby reduces the general concept of conflict to one of the possible varieties.

Introduction.

The purpose of this course work, I have determined for myself the summing up of the study of the discipline "Conflictology", which in turn implies the development and improvement in the field of knowledge about the nature, causes and patterns of social conflicts, the ability to recognize, prevent and manage conflict situations, as well as management skills emotional experiences, behavior in stressful situations and successful negotiations and protection of their interests.

It is well known that the development of any society, any social community or group, even an individual, is a complex process that does not always unfold smoothly, and is often associated with the emergence and resolution of contradictions. In fact, the whole life of any person, any team or organization, any country is woven from contradictions. These contradictions are due to the fact that different people occupy different positions, are guided by different interests, pursue different goals, and therefore, in an effort to realize their needs, interests and goals, quite often two or more individuals, and sometimes social groups and even countries are actively looking for an opportunity to prevent the opponent from achieving a certain goal, to prevent the satisfaction of his interests or to change his views, ideas, assessments of the position. Such confrontation, conducted by dispute, threat or intimidation, use of physical force or weapons, is called a conflict. However, what has been said does not mean at all that any conflict of interests and goals leads to their conflict with each other. Contradiction and conflict are far from the same thing, and the development of a contradiction does not always turn into a conflict. For a conflict to arise, it is necessary that the individuals or their social groups competing for something, firstly, realize the opposite of their interests and goals, and, secondly, begin to actively oppose the opponent. Only that contradiction, which is realized in the active opposition to each other of two or more individuals, groups, parties, countries, etc., becomes the fundamental basis and source of social conflict. Thus, the emergence of conflict as a specific social phenomenon is based on objectively existing contradictions between individual individuals, their groups, states, etc.

1. Interpersonal conflicts.

Interpersonal conflict [from lat. conflictus - clash] - clash of opposing goals, motives, points of view of the interests of the participants in the interaction. In essence, this is the interaction of people either pursuing mutually exclusive or unattainable goals simultaneously by both conflicting parties, or striving to realize incompatible values ​​and norms in their relationships. In socio-psychological science, as a rule, such structural components of interpersonal conflict as a conflict situation, conflict interaction, conflict resolution are considered. At the heart of any interpersonal conflict lies the conflict situation that has developed even before it began. Here we can see both the participants in a possible future interpersonal clash and the subject of their disagreement. In many studies devoted to the problems of interpersonal conflict, it is shown that the conflict situation implies the orientation of its participants to achieve not common, but individual goals. This determines the possibility of an interpersonal conflict, but does not yet predetermine its obligatory nature. In order for an interpersonal conflict to become a reality, it is necessary for its future participants to realize, on the one hand, the current situation as generally meeting their individual goals, and on the other hand, these goals as incompatible and mutually exclusive. But until this happens, one of the potential opponents may change its position, and the object itself, about which differences of opinion have arisen, may lose its significance for one, or even for both sides. If the acuteness of the situation disappears in this way, the interpersonal conflict, which, it would seem, inevitably had to unfold, having lost its objective foundations, simply will not arise.

Direction:

horizontal - participants do not obey each other

vertical - participants are subordinate to each other

mixed - where there are both components (organization)

Conflicts with a vertical component (i.e. vertical and mixed conflicts) account for an average of 70 to 80% of their total number. Such conflicts are most undesirable for the participant standing "above" vertically, i.e. leader: participating in them, he is “bound hand and foot”. For each action and order in this case is considered by all employees (and especially the participants in the conflict) through the prism of the conflict. And even in the case of complete objectivity of the leader, they will see intrigues in relation to opponents in any of his steps. And since the awareness of subordinates is often not enough to correctly assess the actions of the leadership, the misunderstanding is more than compensated for by speculation, mostly of a negative nature.

By value:

constructive (creative)

Opponents do not go beyond ethical standards, business relationships, reasonable arguments,

Leads to the development of relationships between people

destructive (destructive)

One of the parties rigidly insists on its position and ignores the other

One of the parties resorts to condemned methods of struggle

The first is beneficial to the cause, the second is harmful. It is impossible to leave the first, it is necessary to leave the second.

By the nature of the reasons:

• objective - these conflicts have real causes and grounds for their occurrence
• subjective - this type of conflict arises mainly due to subjective reasons, which can be completely different things such as a bad mood or well-being.

Permit scope:

• business - these conflicts are resolved in the field of business relations
• personal-emotional - conflicts are not related to business relationships, but affect the personal-emotional aspects of an individual's life.

According to the form of manifestation:

hidden (poorly understood by people)

open (understand)

Hidden conflicts usually involve two people who, for the time being, try not to show the appearance that they are in conflict. But as soon as one of them loses his nerve, the hidden conflict turns into an open one. There are also random, spontaneously arising, and chronic, as well as deliberately provoked conflicts. Intrigue is a type of conflict. Intrigue is understood as a deliberate dishonest action that is beneficial to its initiator and which forces the team or individual to perform certain actions that harm them. Intrigues, as a rule, are carefully thought out, planned, have their own storyline.

By run time:

• situational - arise within the framework of one particular situation and are usually spontaneous
• prolonged (long) - as a rule, they consist of a series of conflict episodes.

The emergence and development of conflicts is due to the action of the following groups of factors and causes:

• objective;
• organizational and managerial;
• socio-psychological;
• personal.

Objective causes of conflicts

Among the objective causes of conflicts can be attributed mainly to those circumstances of social interaction between people that led to a clash of interests, opinions, and attitudes. Objective reasons lead to the creation of a pre-conflict situation, a situation.

The subjective causes of conflicts are mainly related to those individual psychological characteristics of the opponents, which lead to the fact that they choose exactly the conflict, and not any other way of resolving the objective contradiction. Rigid separation of objective and subjective causes of conflicts, and even more so their opposition, is unjustified. The seemingly purely subjective cause of the conflict may, in the end, be based on a factor that depends little on the person, i.e. objective. And, perhaps, there is not a single conflict that was or was not somehow caused by an objective and subjective factor.

Objective causes of conflicts:

Natural clash of significant material and spiritual interests of people in the process of life;

Weak development of legal and other regulatory procedures for resolving social contradictions;

Lack of material and spiritual benefits that are significant for the normal life of people;

The way of life of many Russians (material and domestic disorder, the lack of opportunities to meet their basic needs);

Sufficiently stable stereotypes of interpersonal and intergroup relations of Russian citizens, contributing to the emergence of conflicts.

Organizational and managerial causes of conflicts

Structural and organizational reasons lie in the inconsistency of the structure of the organization with the requirements of the activity in which it is engaged. The structure should be determined by the tasks that this organization will solve or solve. However, it is almost impossible to achieve an ideal correspondence between the structure of the organization and the tasks to be solved.

Functional and organizational reasons are caused by the non-optimality of the organization's functional relations with the external environment, between the structural elements of the organization, between individual employees, for example, the uncertainty of functional relations between the presidential administration and the government (the problem of rights and obligations).

Personal-functional reasons are associated with the incomplete compliance of the employee in terms of professional, moral and other qualities with the requirements of the position held.

Situational and managerial reasons are due to mistakes made by managers and subordinates in the process of solving managerial and other tasks (making an erroneous managerial decision).

As a result of the study of industrial conflicts, it was found that 52% of conflict situations arise due to the fault of managers, due to their erroneous, conflict-generating decisions, due to incompatibility - 33%, due to improper selection of personnel - 15%, that is, the above factors can cause 67% of conflicts in labor collectives.

Socio-psychological causes of conflicts

Possible significant loss and distortion of information in the process of interpersonal communication (limited vocabulary of a person in general and a particular person in particular, lack of time, deliberate withholding of information, difficulties in understanding due to information filters, inattention, difficulties in quick understanding). What a person hears usually does not take on faith, but evaluates, drawing conclusions that differ, and sometimes opposite, from what the interlocutor said.

Unbalanced role behavior in the interaction of two people(cross transactions Parent - Adult - Child according to E. Berne).

People's misunderstanding that when discussing a problem, especially complex, the mismatch of positions can often be associated not with a real divergence of views on the same thing, but with an approach to the problem from different angles (as in the parable of the five blind wise men and the baby elephant).

Different ways of evaluating the performance and personality of each other(the boss evaluates the results of the work of the subordinate, taking as a basis for assessing what he, the subordinate, failed to do in comparison with the ideal, norm, goal, other subordinates doing this work perfectly, while the subordinate evaluates his work according to the result achieved ). As a result, the same work is evaluated in completely different ways. This leads to conflicts.

Intragroup favoritism- preference of members of one's own group to representatives of other social groups:

The inherent competitive nature of human interaction with other people and groups;

Limited human capacity for decentralization, i.e. changing one's position as a result of comparing it with the positions of other people;

A conscious or unconscious desire to receive more from others than to give to them;

Striving for power;

Psychological incompatibility of people, etc.

Personal causes of conflicts

Lack of sufficient psychological resistance to the negative impact on the psyche of stress factors of social interaction (conflict resistance).

Poorly developed capacity for empathy.

Overestimated or underestimated level of claims and the level of self-esteem associated with this.

character accents.

Withdrawal (avoidance)

Accommodating (repressing oneself)

Compromise

Competition

Cooperation

Care
pros	Minuses
You can use it if the conflict does not concern you. If you are wrong. If a person is difficult to communicate with. We need a breather in the conflict.	The opportunity to take part in events is taken away. The opponent may raise demands when you return. The problem may grow during this time.
Behaviors: Silence physical care Transition to business relationship Full break
Accommodating (repressing oneself)
pros	Minuses
This conflict is important to the opponent, and less important to you. The power of the other person is higher than yours. The opponent is not ready to listen. When you feel sorry for another person. When there is little disagreement.	The need is not being met. The main controversial issues are not addressed. The opponent often doesn't know what's going on. The conflict is not resolved.
Behaviors: Agreement Suppressing your feelings Adjusting to another person Making it look like everything is ok
Compromise
pros	Minuses
A solution is better than no solution. Fair decision. When negotiations are at an impasse, the only way out. Relationships are saved.	Unstable equilibrium. "Half" benefit. One of the parties may raise the requirements.
Behaviors: Relationship maintenance concessions Avoidance of sharp collisions Finding a fair solution
Competition
pros	Minuses
If you want to show superiority. When forced to protect interests, image. Increased self-esteem and victory. Fair play within the law and rules.	Damage to personal and business relationships. Decreased self-esteem in the loser. Not justified in interpersonal relationships.
Behaviors: Engaging Allies Nonverbal gestures
Cooperation
pros	Minuses
A win for everyone. The conflict is being resolved. Relationships are saved.	Collaboration is not always possible. It takes a lot of time. Requires a lot of skills. Satisfaction of interests is more important than achieving the goal.
1) Find out the needs. 2) For what? (Orange => thirst) 3) If the needs are the same => search for solutions

For a correct understanding and interpretation of social conflicts, their essence, features, functions and consequences, their typology is important, i.e. calculation of their main types based on identifying similarities and differences. Reliable ways to identify conflicts by commonality of essential features or differences. There are many principles for classifying and systematizing conflicts, for example, according to the degree of rooting in the objective socio-economic foundations of social processes and systems (structural and non-structural conflicts), depending on the prevailing influence of certain factors in the emergence of conflicts (economic, political, ideological, interethnic , religious, everyday, etc.), depending on the subjects of conflict interaction (intrapersonal, interpersonal, between an individual and a group, intergroup, intercountry (interstate) and global), depending on the form and drama (sharpness) of conflicts (antagonistic and non-antagonistic, explicit and hidden, organized and unorganized, constructive and destructive, rational and irrational, depending on the structural organization of individuals and groups involved in conflicts (interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup).Let's dwell on the last classification in more detail. Interpersonal conflicts develop according to the “individual-individual” scheme, and in them two or more individuals compete, oppose each other, most often (but not necessarily included in a given social group. Many examples of such conflicts can be cited from the life of any so-called contact groups where contacts between its members take place almost daily - a study group, a brigade, a research laboratory, etc. the causes of such conflicts are as diverse as the characters of the individuals entering into them: rivalry for power, for prestige, for popularity, for a more interesting type of work, etc. If the conflict matures and develops between different groups within a given team (community) or between groups representing different communities, then we are dealing with an intergroup conflict. hostility, up to very sharp, accompanied by real battles, began to Recently there have been skirmishes between fanatical fans of various football clubs both in our country and abroad. In turn, intra-group conflicts, depending on how united or disunited with each other the members of this group are in understanding the significance of a particular goal of their joint actions or in determining how to achieve it, are divided into informational and procedural. If, for example, members of the same territorial community of a village or settlement that found itself in the zone of radioactive contamination as a result of the Chernobyl disaster are united in the fact that the main thing in their joint activity is saving lives, first of all, of their children, but some are in favor of immediate resettlement in an ecologically clean area, while others are categorically against it, believing that, according to the information they have, it is possible, with the creation of appropriate conditions (clean food, medical care, etc.), to live quite normally in the old place, we are dealing with a typical information conflict. It is a different matter when all the inhabitants of a given village are convinced of the need to move to an ecologically safe zone, and a fierce dispute is being waged over whether to move in an organized manner, i.e. by all their rallied community into a new place of residence common to all, or each must carry out such a resettlement at his own discretion. In this case, we are faced with a procedural conflict that flares up when a group cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the methods and forms of achieving a common goal for all its members. Role conflict is a specific type of intragroup and (or) intergroup conflict interactions. It may occur when:

a) An individual who is drawn into a conflict relationship with other individuals or their group must, by virtue of his social status, simultaneously perform two different roles;

b) These roles make conflicting demands on his behavioral patterns, i.e. are competing.

For example, the apparent leader of a student basketball team suddenly discovers that he cannot be an excellent athlete and a good student at the same time and refuses to continue to participate in competitions. In this case, the conflict that arose between him and his teammates has a clearly expressed role-playing character. Of course, all the distinguished types of conflicts are constructed on the basis of typology, in which the most characteristic features are clarified and selected for generalization, while secondary features, signs of certain conflict situations and actions are left aside as insignificant or insufficiently significant for this type of conflict behavior. In fact, the real ways and forms of the emergence, development, resolution of conflicts are as diverse as all kinds of goals, interests, needs that unite or separate people in their specific thoughts, assessments and actions. However, a rather serious simplification of reality, carried out by typology of conflicts, does not remove the researcher from understanding their causes, essence, functions and role in the life of society, but, on the contrary, brings them closer to this, because it makes it possible to single out the most important and essential for the study of conflict situations and actions. , without which they simply cannot arise.

The universality of the group (intergroup) conflict is due to the fact that human communities, with the exception of the most primitive ones, function on the basis of social stratification, i.e. are differentiated into different social strata and groups according to the nature of their activities, occupations, economic, political status, etc. The very same social stratification, as noted by the famous conflictologist R. Collins, acts in society as a type and degree of inequality of groups and individuals in their dominance over each other. The causes of social divergence and confrontation in society must be sought in the interests of groups and individuals, and above all in the interests of maintaining their dominant positions or avoiding the domination of others. Success or failure in such a confrontation depends not only on the resources controlled by various groups - economic, political and others, but also on the degree of effectiveness of the social organization of the opposing groups, on the desires and ideas formed in these groups, forming together into more or less cohesive social communities. individuals included in them. Because of this, R. Collins notes, “the driving force of social change is mainly conflict; thus long periods of relatively stable dominance alternate with intense and dramatic periods of group mobilization.” As a result of these features of social stratification, the understanding of intergroup conflict as a dramatic symbol of the general interaction of various social groups in conditions of persisting or changing, irrefutable, etc. their dominance over each other becomes, according to R. Collins, a symbol of a general approach to the entire field of sociology, identified with the theory of conflict. According to the latter, the conflict itself is outlined by the structure of stratification, the intensity of dominance, the resources that enable groups to organize (or prevent them from doing so). Open conflicts are relatively infrequent. therefore, the theory of conflict does not exclude the theory of social solidarity and even theories of social ideals, moral feelings and altruism. The forms of manifestations of intergroup conflicts are as diverse as the goals, interests, values ​​that unite different people into groups, the conditions for the existence of these groups, the ways of their interaction with other groups and society as a whole, the diversity of the composition of these groups (professional, ethnic , age, territorial, etc. ), and how different are the ways of their organization and functioning. Therefore, the range of such conflicts is almost limitless: from family feuds to interstate clashes, from skirmishes between hockey players of two rival teams to bloody ethnic battles. It can be rightfully asserted that all large-scale changes throughout its history humanity has experienced as a result of the deployment of intergroup conflicts: these are political upheavals, wars, revolutions, this is an economic blockade, ideological intervention, psychological warfare or financial sanctions. Of course, intergroup conflicts may not be so large-scale: they include quarrels between neighbors in the dacha over the border of the land, and the rivalry for power between two different groups within the ruling elite, and the enmity of two groups in one territorial team, leading to its split , and a long scientific dispute between supporters of the wave and corpuscular theory in physics. The very concept of "intergroup conflict" suggests that the conflict process arises in the interaction between different groups and it can be carried out for various reasons, in various conditions, in various forms, with varying degrees of tension. In fact, where there is intergroup interaction, intergroup conflicts can and usually do occur. But intergroup interaction is present in all spheres of public life - economic, social, political, spiritual, in all social institutions and in most organizations, therefore, conflicts can arise everywhere. The determination of intergroup conflicts is even more multifaceted and complex than the determination of intragroup conflicts. This situation is explained by the fact that in the case of intergroup enmity, intragroup conflicts inherent in any group seem to be layered on intergroup interactions, mutually reinforcing or, on the contrary, weakening each other, thereby significantly complicating the overall panorama of contradictions, rivalry, clashes, etc. between conflicting groups or organizations. And yet, if we single out the main causes from the general panorama of causes leading to intergroup conflicts, then they can be combined into three main groups:

• objective conditions of interaction that bind or separate social groups;
• intra-group processes, including conflict. Flowing in each of the interacting groups;
• the content and direction of intergroup interactions. Visually, this panorama of the determination of intergroup conflict is shown in the diagram:

On the basis of the above paragraph, it is possible to carry out a typology of the whole variety of intergroup conflicts. Their various forms and manifestations can be reduced to the following main types:

1. Rivalry- this type of intergroup interaction, in which social groups are collectives of enterprises, institutions, sports teams, etc. - competing with each other, achieving the same goal, they strive to surpass the opponent in some way. For example, the main rivals of Soviet and then Russian hockey players in the fight for the world championship are usually Canadian, Czech, Swedish, Finnish American hockey clubs.

2. clash- this kind of intergroup interaction in which rival groups seek (or are forced) to inflict damage, tangible, and sometimes disastrous, to each other

3. domination(dominance) - such intergroup interaction in which one group has a significant advantage in the most important, due to which it dominates the other in economic, political, linguistic, etc. relation.

4. Evasion- this type of interaction between groups, during which one of them or both tend to move away, move away, move away from the other in order to avoid a collision, blow, attack, etc. A typical example of such interaction was the actions of Russian troops during the Patriotic War of 1812 before the famous battle of Borodino, and the retreating French troops after the battle of Maloyaroslavets.

5. Avoidance is an intergroup interaction in which

one of the conflicting groups seeks to separate, move away from the other, to avoid meeting with it, which promises unpleasant, undesirable consequences. So, usually, groups of smugglers act, avoiding meetings with customs officers, or poachers, who seek to get away from the control of fish supervision authorities.

6. Accommodation- this kind of intergroup interaction, in the process of implementation of which one group (as a rule, inferior in power, strength, wealth, etc. to another) seeks to adapt to the pressure of a stronger social group.

7. Assimilation- a specific type of intergroup dynamics, characterized by the fact that one group is likened to another in some important respect, assimilating its essential features, norms of behavior, etc. In this way, a people or a certain part of it merges with another way.

learning its language, culture, customs, etc.

8. suppression- a type of intergroup interaction in which one of the conflicting groups gains a decisive advantage, due to which it is in a position to forcibly, often with the help of armed force, put an end to the existence of a hostile group, a striking example of which is the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921 by the Soviet authorities, its punitive bodies .

9. Negotiation- a specific type of intergroup dynamics, during which rival groups (more often their representatives) exchange views, bring their positions closer and reach an agreement on ways to resolve the conflict through mutual concessions to each other.

10. Compromise- such intergroup interaction that allows reaching an agreement between groups through mutual concessions to each other.

11. Agreement- a kind of intergroup dynamics that allows conflicting groups to come to a mutual agreement, to an agreement on some important issue for them.

12. Cooperation- this type of intergroup interaction, in which friendly or rival groups begin to engage in joint activities in an important area of ​​public life for them.

If we keep in mind the 12 named types of intergroup interaction, which

are possible and develop depending on the existing conflict

situation and the correlation of forces of the opposing sides, then the model of intergroup

conflicts takes the form shown in the diagram:

1. Rivalry

2. Collision

3. Domination

4. Evasion

5. Avoidance

6. Accommodation

7. Assimilation

8. Suppression

9. Negotiations

10. Compromise

11. Consent

12. Cooperation

If there were no opportunities for harmonizing interests and positions, society would find itself in a state of incessant war of all against all. The fact of the matter is that with all the disagreements, contradictions, conflicts in public life, there is always the possibility of finding points of agreement between interests, aspirations, desires, and this is very important for a correct understanding of the dynamics of intergroup conflicts. Of course, no one demands a departure from the principles, but the search for ways and opportunities to harmonize or at least bring together the positions of social groups in conflict on some problems must be carried out constantly, otherwise stability and sustainability of socio-economic and political processes cannot be achieved.

Each community and society as a whole consists of many groups, like

formal as well as informal. Differences between groups, their differentiation is different

from a friend, as a rule, are deeper and sharper than interpersonal

and intragroup. Therefore, intergroup contradictions that can lead to

the emergence of conflict processes, in terms of their content, nature,

direction, scale, duration, sharpness, etc. much

more diverse than the causes of other conflicts. They can be class

ethnic, regional, professional, sociocultural, age

etc. All this leads to much greater complexity and difficulty.

managerial impact on the course and resolution of intergroup

conflicts.

Since one of the most widely acting factors in the occurrence of

intergroup conflicts is a significant predominance of differentiating,

competitive tendencies over integrative ones, because in strategy,

focused on prevention, smoothing and resolution of intergroup

confrontation, the focus should be on identifying and

the use of additional integration components in the intergroup

interaction. In contrast to the prevailing in conditions of intergroup conflict

phenomena of group-centrism, bias, hostility, discrimination,

aggressiveness to actively look for and find opportunities to enhance or include in

the action of new, previously non-existing integrative intergroup phenomena.

Socio-psychological studies conducted by V.S. Ageev and his

employees showed that there are three mutually related phenomena

intergroup integration. The first one is named "group affiliation"

and consists in using the inherent desire of any group to be a composite

part and feel that you belong to some larger social

generality, as a result of which one group is a subset of another. This phenomenon is characteristic of various social groups -

ethnic, religious, territorial, professional, etc., should

much wider than is currently done, use for

preventing and resolving possible and already existing intergroup

conflicts. As an example of the importance of using this particular approach in

to prevent the emergence of interethnic conflicts, we present data,

characterizing the features of the socio-ethnic identification of the population in

border regions of Belarus with Poland. In the existing hierarchy

self-identification, the indisputable priority is self-identification

personality with a person, i.e. identification of the individual with the human race (this

position is defended by more than 79% of respondents). Next in descending order are:

identification with a man or woman (27.7%), with a Christian (Catholic,

Orthodox, etc.) - 19%, and only the fourth place in this narrowing from above

down the spiral of self-identifications takes the identification of oneself with a certain

ethnic group - Belarusian, Pole, Ukrainian, Russian, etc. - 18.4%. So

Thus, the ethnic group in the representation of the absolute majority of the population

Belarusian-Polish borderlands appears as a less objective social

a community that is a subset of another - wider one. And such

socio-psychological reality allows you to effectively influence the processes

intergroup, in this case interethnic and interregional,

interaction in terms of preventing intergroup conflicts on

ethnic and religious grounds. To translate the general direction

integration strategy of intergroup interaction into the plane of practical

actions is necessary in such a delicate area as relationships

between representatives of different ethnic groups and religious beliefs, the main focus

do on non-institutionalized forms of cooperation – use

features of the mentality of the Belarusian people with their characteristic

tolerance, tolerance for other than their own, ethnic and religious customs,

habits, a centuries-old tradition of cooperation with different ethnic groups, etc.

The second intergroup phenomenon of strengthening integrative tendencies in intergroup

interactions is the so-called "group openness"

Those. openness of groups in relation to other groups, which consists in

seeking influence and appreciation from some other groups. how

the degree of openness of groups to intergroup interaction characterizes the degree of its

social contact, the degree of involvement in social processes is more

high order. say, in a crisis

post-Soviet society, including in Belarus, is becoming more and more obvious

conflict confrontation between the emerging new class in our country

entrepreneurs and the majority of the rest of the population, living standards

which is drastically reduced. The most efficient way to exit

such a conflict confrontation can and should be the entry of our new

entrepreneurial structures in the international business community,

those. into an identical social group on a larger scale. This is one of

real ways of forming not criminogenic, but legitimate, based on

integrity, honesty, high performance, and most importantly -

legitimacy, entrepreneurial groups in our country and thereby reduce

sharpness of their conflict confrontation with the broad masses of the impoverished

population. When implementing such a strategy, the population will see in these groups not

crooks, crooks, thieves, but people who work not only for their own benefit, but also

for the benefit of the people, giving other people new jobs, opportunities for more

high and stable earnings, increasing welfare. Thus, sharply

the conflict in our society will decrease, the possibilities of the emergence of

intergroup conflicts in it.

There is also a third phenomenon of strengthening integration tendencies in the intergroup

interaction, the so-called "intergroup reference".

Reference, i.e. the need to correlate oneself, one's actions, their assessments with

significant others, exists not only on the interpersonal, but also on the intergroup

level. If we are talking about a social group, then it, as a specific whole,

inherent need to appeal to a significant outgroup that

acts either as a bearer of certain values ​​and norms, or as a

the role of a “mirror” reflecting this group and the world around it. This objectively

the existing need is realized in the appropriate strategies of intergroup

interactions, in systems of social representations related to "We" and "They"

This phenomenon is also important as a component of managerial

influence on intergroup conflicts, with which our

a society that is in a deep systemic crisis, because comparison with

what we call "They", referring to Western society with a developed market

economy and democratic tendencies, as with a reference group will allow

to institutionalize the multitude of intergroup conflicts more widely and more effectively,

shaking a transitional society, reduce their severity, duration,

negative destructive consequences.

In the management of intergroup conflicts, it is necessary to clearly define the strengths and weaknesses of the competing parties, the balance of their forces, resources, and capabilities. Depending on the named factors, their combinations can be chosen four possible options: attack, defense, evasion, retreat. The first of these is the desire to cause changes that are undesirable for the enemy. The second is to prevent a change that is undesirable for oneself by actively resisting the offensive actions of the enemy. The evasion strategy is reduced to the desire to prevent an undesirable change for oneself by evading a decisive clash with the enemy - to the desire to maintain maximum strength in the event of an undesirable change caused by the rival side. In case of application offensive strategies in intergroup conflict, you can use several methods. Let's name some of them. One of the most common methods of an offensive strategy of intergroup confrontation is the suppression of the enemy, often with the use of violence, including armed. Almost the entire history of mankind, until recently, is filled with armed conflicts. And although in the conditions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, a large-scale war is capable of calling into question the very existence of mankind, the latter has not yet been able to get rid of attempts to violently resolve conflicts through the use of armed force. Suffice it to recall the Serbo-Croat-Bosnian armed conflicts on the territory of the former Yugoslavia or the use by the Russian government of the war in Chechnya as the most effective multifunctional means of resolving political, territorial, ethnic conflicts. Of course, war as a comprehensive and multifunctional means of suppressing the hostile side in the conflict includes many specific methods of delivering crushing blows to the opposing side. One of the effective methods of offensive confrontation, which has been successfully used many times in various areas of conflict interaction, especially in military affairs, is to use a surprise action. To take the enemy by surprise or to act unexpectedly for him - this is almost half the success. The method of pre-emptive strike can be considered equally effective. To deliver an effective pre-emptive strike, it is important to take into account not only the balance of forces, but also the time factor: to get ahead of the enemy in deploying active operations and at the same time not let him come to his senses. For the effective implementation of an offensive strategy in conflict interaction, it is very important to use the method of concentration of forces. This method is used not only in this strategy, but in other areas of activity. Its modification is the method of "brainstorming" widely known and widely used in the field of scientific research and development, in which the concentration of forces of specialists of different training profiles takes place. A detailed description and ways of using this method are given in the already mentioned work of R. Fisher and W. Urey "The path to agreement or negotiations without defeat". Since the use of weapons and physical violence are episodic phenomena in the application of an offensive strategy in intergroup conflicts, violent structures often influence the enemy mainly through threats. The well-known American conflictologist R. Collins called such pressure on the opponent a “coercion coalition”. The meaning of this principle is extremely clear: it is not at all necessary to use armed force, it is enough to demonstrate the possibility of such use. For example, conducting military maneuvers on the border or near the state, which is under pressure. In offensive strategy, in some competitive situations, it can be effective to use the fait accompli method. Let us illustrate its operation with the following example from the field of competition for sales markets. Let's say one of the firms makes its offer and asks to give it an order for a certain range of goods. The second, which is in conflict with it in an effort to capture this market, delivers the goods to the place without a preliminary request and asks only that they be tested and kept at home, and as for the conditions and calculations, they can be agreed upon later, after the checks carried out. . It is clear that with such a development of intergroup conflict, those suppliers who use the method of a fait accompli in their actions will take over the market. As you can see, this method is very similar to the method of advancing the opponent discussed above: in both cases, the one who uses the advantage of the first move wins. AT defensive strategies can be an effective method of using the functions and resources of the enemy for your own purposes. This method is associated with the application of the martial arts rules of judo and jiu-jitsu: avoid using your power directly against the opponent, instead use your skill to step aside and turn his strength to your advantage.

The method of limiting the freedom of action of the enemy is also widely used in the defensive strategy of conflict confrontation. A classic example here is the maneuver carried out by Alexander the Great. The latter diverted the army of the Persian king Darius from the wide open plains, where it could successfully use its numerical superiority, into narrow mountain passes, and, depriving it of its advantages, won the decisive battle.

In a defensive confrontation strategy, the method of luring the enemy into a trap can be successfully applied. Encourage political opponents to debate issues. It is obviously not profitable for them to seduce an opponent in business with the appearance of an easy win. And then make him suffer losses in a competitive battle with the conflicting party - these are some of the tricks of luring into a trap. In intergroup conflicts, under certain conditions (for example, when the opponent is superior in strength, resources, experience, etc.), the strategy may be effective retreat, aimed at maintaining the maximum of forces, means, resources during the active offensive of the enemy. Cases from hockey and football are widely known, when, even at the world championships, teams that used defensive tactics, through well-organized, swift and powerful counterattacks, achieved victory over their rivals. The retreat strategy is often intertwined with the strategy evasions. It represents a well-thought-out and well-organized avoidance of a decisive encounter with the enemy, a delay in the counteroffensive with the aim of psychologically and physically "wearing out" the opposing side. If the confrontation between the warring groups (countries, nations, armies, etc.) is not carried out in extreme conditions of wars, revolutions, coup d'etat, then the skillful application of the strategy is very important. institutionalization of the conflict, i.e. the use of legitimate conciliation procedures accepted in democratic societies to resolve it.

One of the most widely used and effective procedures of this kind is negotiation. According to one of the largest American experts in the field of conflict resolution. Professor G. Reiff of Harvard University, every sane person should have the ability to effectively resolve disputes and disagreements so that the fabric of social life does not tear with every conflict, but, on the contrary, grows stronger due to the growth of the ability to find and develop common interests. The most effective way to do this is through negotiations, during which it is necessary to seek mutual benefit based on the use of existing differences. Based on his ideas, professors of the same university r. Fisher and W. Ury concluded that negotiations are “the main means of getting what you want from other people” and are “a shuttle relationship designed to reach an agreement when the parties involved have coinciding or opposing interests.” At the same time, the most appropriate and effective is "The Principled Negotiation Method", which mean a tough approach to the consideration of the merits of the case, but provide for a soft approach to the relations between the negotiators. It can be reduced to four main points: 1) make a distinction between the negotiators and the subject of negotiations; 2) focus on interests, not positions; 3) before deciding what to do, highlight the range of possibilities; 4) insist that the result be based on some objective norm. Citing numerous and striking examples from a variety of negotiation practices, R. Fischer and W. Ury emphasize that “the main problem of negotiations is not in conflicting positions, but in a conflict between needs. Desires, concerns and fears of each of the parties. Therefore, in order to achieve a reasonable solution in the negotiation process, “it is necessary to reconcile interests, not positions, all the more so. That behind opposite positions, along with contradictions, there can be shared and acceptable interests. Being an extremely effective way to resolve intergroup conflicts, negotiations at the same time are not able to become universal, much less the only means. They have their own range of applicability. Negotiations as a form of conflict resolution are usually held when both sides estimate their resources as approximately equal and when the hostile feelings of each participant in the interaction do not exceed. tolerance. In addition, which is especially important, a negotiation strategy can be chosen when one (or both) of the participants in the interaction refuses to be aware of possible mutual incompatibility and, therefore, become capable of making concessions, of course, within certain limits.

An important institutionalized way of managerial influence on intergroup conflicts is mediation. It is a method of resolving a conflict situation by contacting a third party not directly involved in the conflict in order to help end the conflict resistance and establish cooperation. Mediation functions in the conflict can be performed by both individuals and any organizations, institutions, governments. Experience shows that a well-chosen mediator is able to ensure the settlement of the conflict in those cases where, without his efforts, agreements between the competing parties would have been impossible at all. But in order to successfully fulfill such a complex mission, the mediator must have high authority, impeccable morality, be politically and financially neutral, professionally competent, and possess high intelligence.

One of the important ways to resolve intergroup conflicts is to application of arbitration, which is a certain set of procedures of a conciliatory nature, carried out primarily officially by an authorized institution or organization. Moreover, there are two main types of arbitration: 1) when his invitation is necessary, but the execution of his decisions is not necessary, or vice versa; 2) when it is not necessary to address him, but in the case of an invitation, submission to him is necessary. In the conditions of transition to the market, the role of arbitration as a specific way of resolving intergroup conflicts will increase. This is due to the following circumstance. In the CIS countries, including Belarus, there is a widespread misconception that there are equal sellers and buyers on the market who sell and buy various services and goods for mutual benefit, including a specific type of product - labor. Meanwhile, the long-term experience of countries with a developed market economy irrefutably shows that even during periods of economic boom, the employer and employee do not meet on the labor market as equal partners. An entrepreneur, hiring or firing an employee, directly decides the issue of his material existence, therefore, the well-being of the employee is entirely dependent on the employer, at the same time, neither hiring nor dismissing the employee in any way threatens the well-being of the employer. Such an unequal position, due to the very essence of a market economy, inevitably gives rise to conflicts between both, and since the entrepreneur always has more funds, rights, opportunities, the role of arbitration, in particular, neutral conciliation commissions, becomes very important in resolving such intergroup conflicts. and especially the labor courts. These courts are set up specifically to resolve conflicts between employers and employees. Being independent in relation to both entrepreneurs and employees, labor dispute courts, on the one hand, provide employees with the possibility of legal protection from the arbitrariness of a more powerful opponent, on the other hand, they are an instance capable of removing a possible “blockade” through judicial resolution of the conflict. negotiations on the merits of this conflict on the part of its participants. This feature of their activities leads to an increase in the willingness of the conflicting parties to reach a compromise at the negotiating table.

So, a compromise, which can also arise as a result of direct negotiations between the participants in an intergroup conflict, and, if they turn to a mediator or arbitration, is also a widespread way of managing the conflict. Compromise represents a specific form of "social conflict" that creates the possibility of distribution of benefits and losses acceptable to the warring parties. An agreement to resolve a conflict is usually reached when the participants believe that the proposed distribution of gains and losses is fair. American management specialist M. H. Meskon, M. Albert and F. Hedouri argue that "the ability to compromise is highly valued in managerial situations, as it minimizes ill will and makes it possible to quickly resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of both parties" Of course , a compromise is appropriate not every and not always. Compromises that are inseparable from a deal with conscience, violations of moral standards, betrayal, etc., should be excluded from the sphere of resolving intergroup conflicts.

This paper outlines the most common ways of managerial influence on intergroup conflicts. It is impossible to avoid conflicts in our life, and maybe it is not necessary. But one should know in what ways one can transfer them from a destructive clash of opposing interests into a constructive channel, how to resolve them for the benefit of the cause. Of course, this does not mean that it is easy to change one's attitudes, habits, or perceptions, or to induce a rival side in a conflict to do so. To achieve a result, you need to know all the ways to resolve conflicts, and applying each of them in its place and at the right time, go to success.

As part of this course work, I was able to consider and study two types of emerging conflicts such as interpersonal and intergroup. It was also possible to study in detail the causes of their occurrence, characteristic properties, as well as possible solutions to these conflicts. Unfortunately, it is not possible to fully cover such a large topic as conflictology, even if we consider only two types, within the framework of one term paper, and therefore in this work I tried to concentrate the available and received knowledge as much as possible for a more compact presentation. At the same time, it should be noted that a social conflict is always a struggle generated by a confrontation between public and group, but not individual, interests.

In my opinion, the final post-conflict stage is of great importance. At this stage, efforts should be made to finally eliminate conflicts of interests, goals, attitudes, social and psychological tension should be eliminated, and any struggle should be stopped.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that since conflicts are inevitable in our lives, we need to learn how to manage them, strive to ensure that they lead to the least costs for society and the individuals involved.
List of used literature.

1. Ageev D.S. Intergroup interaction. Socio-psychological problems. M. 1990.

2. Grishina N.V. psychology of conflict. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

3. Danakin N.S., Dyatchenko L.Ya. Technology of rivalry and confrontation. Belgorod. 1993.

4. Dmitriev A., Kudryavtsev V., Kudryavtsev S. Introduction to the general theory of conflicts.

5. Durkheim E. On the division of social labor. Method of sociology. M. 1991.

6. Collins R. Conflict Theory in Contemporary Macrohistorical Sociology. // Philosophical and sociological thought. 1993.

7. Conflictology. / Ed. A.S. Carmine. SPb. 1999.

8. Meskon M.Kh. , Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of Management. M. 1992.

9. Oleinik A.N. Fundamentals of conflictology. M., 1992

10. Smelzer N. J. Sociology. M. 1994.

11. Sulimova T.S. Social work and constructive conflict resolution. M., 1996

12. Fisher R., Uri W. The path to agreement or negotiations without defeat. M. 1990.

13. Chumikov A.N. Regulation of socio-political conflicts in post-Soviet Russia. //Power. 1996, No. 10

14. http://www.minskportal.com

15. http://sob-rgsu.narod.ru/

16. http://www.angelhelp.ru/

17. http://conflictologiy.narod.ru/

3. Interpersonal conflict

1. The concept of interpersonal conflict

2. Functions, structure and dynamics of interpersonal conflict

3. Basic styles of behavior in interpersonal conflict

1. The concept of interpersonal conflict

Interpersonal conflicts, along with group conflicts, are one of the most common types of conflicts. Interpersonal conflicts are closely related to other types of conflicts: intergroup, ethnic, organizational, since any conflict is always the interaction of specific individuals, and in order to start the mechanism of conflict confrontation, personal motivation of the participants, a feeling of hostility or hatred towards another is necessary.

Interpersonal conflict is a clash of two or more individuals caused by a mismatch of goals and interests, value orientations, struggle for scarce resources, awareness of a security threat, psychological and behavioral characteristics. An interpersonal conflict is also understood as an open clash of interacting subjects based on the contradictions that have arisen, acting as opposite goals that are incompatible in a particular situation. Interpersonal conflict is manifested in the interaction between two or more persons. In interpersonal conflicts, subjects confront each other and sort out their relationship directly, face to face.

In an interpersonal conflict, each side seeks to defend its opinion, to prove its wrong to the other, people resort to various types of aggression, from verbal to physical. Such behavior causes acute negative emotional experiences in the subjects of the conflict, which aggravate the interaction of the participants and provoke them to extreme actions. In conditions of interpersonal conflict, rational perception of reality is often difficult, emotions begin to take precedence over reason. Many of its participants, after resolving an interpersonal conflict, experience negative emotions for a long time.

Interpersonal conflict reveals the lack of agreement in the existing system of interaction between people. They have opposing opinions, interests, points of view, views on the same problems, which at the appropriate stage of the relationship disrupt normal interaction, when one of the parties begins to purposefully act to the detriment of the other, and the latter, in turn, realizes that these actions infringe on its interests, and takes retaliatory actions.

This situation most often leads to conflict as a means of resolving it. The full resolution of the conflict will be carried out when the opposing sides together quite consciously eliminate the causes that gave rise to it. If the conflict is resolved by the victory of one of the parties, then such a state will be temporary and the conflict will necessarily declare itself in some form under favorable circumstances.

Interpersonal conflict involves direct contact between opponents, direct interaction. Such a kind of "immersion" in the conflict weakens the action of the mechanisms of reflection, leads to a distortion of the perception of the situation. The psychological features of the conflict include the following points.

1. Insufficient awareness of the motives of behavior, one's own and the opponent's. Probably, it would be more accurate to talk about a kind of mythologization of motives, their construction under the influence of various factors. Typical examples of mythologization are:

- the illusion of one's own nobility (I defend a just cause, truth, goodness and justice in the struggle);

- hypertrophy of other people's shortcomings (the principle of a straw in another's eye);

- a double standard of evaluation (what is possible for me is absolutely unacceptable on the part of the opponent);

- simplification of the conflict situation, its translation into one dimension of confrontation and struggle;

- conscious, or, more often, unconscious substitution of the object of the conflict, which increases the motivation for conflict behavior.

2. Substitution of motives for conflict behavior, most often associated with the action of the projection mechanism - the transfer of the internal psychological state to the assessment of other objects or people (or attributing one's motives to others). This may be based on:

- suppressed needs

- unresolved problems of the past (for example, children's complexes);

- an inferiority complex;

- own internally unacceptable qualities or personality traits, the existence of which a person does not want to admit and transfers to the outside.

The causes of interpersonal conflicts are very diverse and are due to the action of a wide variety of variables: from the sociocultural characteristics of individuals to the mismatch of their psychological types.

identifies the following groups of main causes of conflicts:

Structural features include:

- diagnostic (the appearance of a conflict acts as an indicator of dysfunctional relations and manifestations of the contradictions that have arisen);

- development function (conflict is an important source of development of its participants and improvement of the interaction process);

- instrumental (the conflict acts as a tool for resolving contradictions);

- reconstruction (conflict removes factors that interfere with interpersonal interactions, brings interaction between participants to a new level).

The destructive functions of conflict are related to:

- with the collapse of existing joint activities;

- deterioration or complete collapse of relations;

– poor emotional state of the participants;

– low efficiency of further interaction, etc.

It is this side of the conflict that causes people the most negative attitude towards the participants, and they try to avoid them as much as possible.

The structure of interpersonal conflict is not something particularly specific. As in any other conflict, the main structural elements in an interpersonal conflict are: the subjects of the conflict, their personal characteristics, goals and motives, supporters, the cause of the conflict (the object of the conflict). The subjects of interpersonal conflict include those participants who defend their own interests, strive to achieve their goal. They always speak for themselves.

The object of interpersonal conflict is what its participants claim. This is the material, social, spiritual value, or the goal that each of the opposing subjects strives to achieve. For example, two children in kindergarten claim the same toy. In this case, the object of disagreement is the toy itself, provided that the opposite side considers its rights infringed.

The subject of the conflict in such a situation are contradictions in which the opposite interests of children are manifested. In the above case, the subject will be the desire of children to master the right to dispose of the toy, that is, the problem of mastering the object, the claims that the subjects present to each other. In this regard, two aspects can be distinguished in the structure of interpersonal conflict: the first is the objectively established antagonism of interests, goals, values, and opinions. But in itself, the confrontation of interests and goals is static, does not lead to the emergence and deployment of a conflict process without external behavioral expression. Therefore, the second aspect is behavioral antagonism associated with contradictions in interaction, with an emotionally intense confrontation between the parties.

In accordance with this, we can distinguish two parallel systems, two "hypostases" in the interpersonal conflict.

1. Analyzing the content characteristics of the conflict object, we construct some cognitive (semantic) structure based on knowledge, information, values ​​that we attach to these cognitive elements. In accordance with them, the purpose of the action is built.

2. But at the same time, conflict actions are associated with the motives of behavior, with the personal meaning that sets the relationship to opponents.

But any conflict should always be considered not only in statics, but also in dynamics. Conflict is a process that is always in development, so its elements and structure are constantly changing. There is a wide range of views on this issue in the literature. for example, in the textbook "Conflictology" they give a detailed table of the main periods and stages of the dynamics of the conflict. Depending on the degree of tension in relations, they distinguish differentiating and integrating parts of the conflict.

The conflict itself, they believe, consists of three periods:

1) pre-conflict (the emergence of an objective problem situation, awareness of an objective problem situation, attempts to solve the problem in non-conflict ways, pre-conflict situation);

2) conflict (incident, escalation, balanced counteraction, end of the conflict);

3) post-conflict situation (partial normalization of relations, full normalization of relations).

Daniel Dana, PhD, one of the pioneers in the field of conflict resolution, in his four-step method for improving relationships, identifies only three levels of conflict development:

1st level: skirmishes (minor troubles that do not pose a threat to the relationship);

2nd level: collisions (development of skirmishes into collisions - expansion of the circle of causes that cause quarrels, a decrease in the desire to interact with another and a decrease in faith in his good intentions for us);

3rd level: crisis (the escalation of clashes into a crisis is the final decision to break off relations that are unhealthy, here the emotional instability of the participants reaches such an extent that there are fears of physical violence).

Each of these authors independently determines the tactics and strategy for resolving conflicts and preventing them. In any case, for the emergence of an interpersonal conflict, the presence of contradictions (objective or imaginary) is necessary. The contradictions that have arisen due to a discrepancy in the views and assessments of people on a variety of phenomena lead to a situation of dispute. If it poses a threat to one of the participants, then a conflict situation arises.

The conflict situation is characterized by the presence of opposite goals and aspirations of the parties to master one object. For example, the issue of leadership in a student group between students. For a conflict to arise, a kind of trigger is needed, that is, a reason that activates the action of one of the parties. Any circumstances can act as a trigger, even the actions of a third party. In the above example, the reason may be a negative opinion about one of the contenders for the leadership of any student.

3. Basic styles of behavior

in interpersonal conflict

Any conflict always has its resolution, someday ends. Interpersonal conflict is no exception, after all, it also has its resolution. Forms of resolving interpersonal conflicts depend on the behavior of subjects in the process of conflict development. This part of the conflict is called the emotional side, and many researchers consider it the most important.

Researchers identify the following styles of behavior in interpersonal conflict: rivalry, evasion, adaptation, compromise, suppression, assertive behavior. Let's take a closer look at these styles.

1. Rivalry- this style of behavior is characterized by persistent, uncompromising, non-cooperative defense of one's interests, for which all available means are used. This style is most often used by opponents of equal rank. Characteristic features of this style: the desire to satisfy their interests at the expense of the interests of others; the desire to avoid the pain caused by defeat; The main thing is not to win, the main thing is not to lose. This behavior is manifested in people who always strive to "save face", to be a winner in any situation and at any cost. If this style is used by both opponents, the conflict becomes an end in itself, the original cause fades into the background, and rational control over the situation is lost.

2. Evasion associated with an attempt to get away from the conflict, not attaching great value to it, perhaps due to the lack of conditions for its resolution. A group of opponents or one of them refuse to participate in the further development of events, evade solving the problem. The forms of manifestation of such behavior can be silence, defiant removal, ignoring the offender, breaking off relations. In some cases, this behavior can be productive (if the problem is not important to you, if you realize that you are being deliberately drawn into the conflict, if you do not currently have sufficient information about the situation). But this style also has negative aspects: dodging provokes excessive demands from the opponent, turning off the situation can lead to a loss.

3. fixture implies the willingness of the subject to give up their interests in order to maintain relationships that are placed above the subject and object of disagreement. The conflict is not released outside for the sake of solidarity (sometimes false), the preservation of unity even at the cost of significant sacrifices and concessions. So, the leader can adhere to this tactic in relation to subordinates (or one of them) in order to save the "face" of the organization, "not to wash dirty linen in public." Such behavior may be justified if you need to get a reprieve, analyze the situation. But if this style is used constantly, one of the parties inevitably becomes the object of manipulation and is forced to constantly make concessions, submit to the pressure of the opponent. This leads to the accumulation of negative emotions, the constant growth of a negative emotional background.

4. Compromise requires concessions from both sides to the extent that an acceptable solution is found through mutual concessions for the opposing sides. This style of conflict behavior is perhaps the most constructive (although it is not applicable in every situation). The bottom line is that the point of view of the opponent is accepted, but only if he makes reciprocal concessions. With this style, a rational strategy dominates: it is better to gain something than to lose everything. It is important that each participant in the conflict achieve something. But often the problem is that some finite value is being divided, and the needs of all participants cannot be fully satisfied, which can become the basis for a new conflict. For example, if two children quarrel over a chocolate bar, then a compromise is possible (half), but if the object of the conflict is a toy, then a compromise is impossible for objective reasons (an indivisible object). The fact is that a compromise presupposes, albeit partial, but simultaneous satisfaction of the needs of the subjects of conflict confrontation.

5. suppression- the essence of this style lies in the fact that one of the opponents forces the other to accept his point of view or position at any cost, using aggression, power and coercion. This happens very often when one of the opponents has higher ranked positions and seeks to realize his advantage using any available resources. Such behavior, for example, is often characteristic of authoritarian parents when resolving conflict situations with a child. Of course, this leads to the fact that the “weaker” opponent is forced to submit, but the conflict is driven inside and inevitably periodically resumes.

6. assertive behavior(from English assert - to assert, to defend). Such behavior implies the ability of a person to defend his interests and achieve his goals without prejudice to the interests of other people. It is aimed at ensuring that the realization of one's own interests is a condition for the realization of the interests of interacting subjects. Assertiveness is an attentive attitude both to oneself and to a partner. Assertive behavior prevents the emergence of conflicts, and in a conflict situation helps to find the right way out of it. At the same time, the greatest efficiency is achieved when one assertive person interacts with another such person.

It should be noted that there is no ideal style of behavior in interpersonal conflict. All of these styles of behavior can be both spontaneous and consciously used to achieve the desired results in resolving such conflicts.

Conflictology. Ed. . SPb. Publishing house "Lan", 1999. S. 132.

Shipilov. M. UNITI, 1999. S. 264.

Dana D. Overcoming disagreements. SPb. LENATO, 1994, pp. 30–35.

Andrienko psychology. M. ACADEMIA, 2000. S. 223–224.

Unfortunately, people do not always manage to peacefully resolve all disputes and misunderstandings. Very often, completely out of nowhere, interpersonal conflict arises. What is the reason and why is this happening? What are the ways to resolve interpersonal conflicts? Is it possible to avoid them and live your whole life without conflict with anyone?

What is conflict?

Conflict is one of the ways to resolve problems and contradictions that arise as a result of interaction between individuals or groups of people. At the same time, it is accompanied by negative emotions and behavior that goes beyond the norms accepted in society.

During the conflict, each of the parties takes and defends the opposite position in relation to each other. None of the opponents wants to understand and accept the opinion of the opponent. The conflicting parties can be not only individuals, but also social groups and states.

Interpersonal conflict and its features

If the interests and goals of two or more people in a particular case diverge, and each side tries to resolve the dispute in its favor, an interpersonal conflict arises. An example of such a situation is a quarrel between a husband and wife, a child and a parent, a subordinate and a boss. This one is the most common and most frequently occurring.

Interpersonal conflict can occur both between well-known and constantly communicating people, and between those who see each other for the first time. At the same time, the relations are clarified by opponents face to face, through a personal dispute or discussion.

Stages of interpersonal conflict

The conflict is not just a dispute between two participants, arising spontaneously and unexpectedly. It is a process consisting of several stages, gradually developing and gaining momentum. The causes of interpersonal conflicts can sometimes accumulate for quite a long time before they result in open confrontation.

At the first stage, the conflict is hidden. At this time, conflicting interests and views are only brewing and forming. At the same time, both parties to the conflict believe that their problem can be solved through negotiations and discussions.

At the second stage of the conflict, the parties realize that it will not be possible to overcome their contradictions by peaceful means. There is a so-called tension, which increases and gains power.

The third stage is characterized by the beginning of active actions: disputes, threats, insults, the spread of negative information about the enemy, the search for allies and like-minded people. At the same time, mutual hostility, hatred, and anger accumulate between the participants.

The fourth stage is the process of resolving interpersonal conflicts. It can end with the reconciliation of the parties or a break in relations.

Types of interpersonal conflicts

There are many classifications of interpersonal conflicts. They are divided according to the severity, duration of the course, scale, form of manifestation, and expected consequences. Most often, the types of interpersonal conflicts differ in the reasons for their occurrence.

The most common is the conflict of interest. It occurs when people have opposite plans, goals, intentions. An example is the following situation: two friends cannot agree on how to spend their time. The first wants to go to the cinema, the second just wants to take a walk. If neither of them wants to make concessions to the other, and an agreement fails, a conflict of interest may arise.

The second type is value conflicts. They can arise in cases where the participants have different moral, worldview, religious ideas. A striking example of this type of confrontation is the conflict of generations.

Role conflicts are the third type of interpersonal confrontations. In this case, the cause is violations of the usual norms of behavior and rules. Such conflicts can occur, for example, in an organization when a new employee refuses to accept the rules established by the team.

Causes of interpersonal conflicts

Among the reasons that provoke conflicts, in the first place is This can be, for example, one TV or computer for the whole family, a certain amount of money for bonuses that needs to be divided among all employees of the department. In this case, one person can only achieve his goal by infringing on the other.

The second reason for the development of conflicts is interdependence. It can be a connection of tasks, powers, responsibilities and other resources. So, in an organization, project participants may begin to blame each other if, for some reason, it was not possible to implement it.

Conflicts can be provoked by differences in goals, in views, in ideas about certain things, in the manner of behavior and communication. In addition, the cause of confrontations can be the personal characteristics of a person.

Interpersonal conflicts in the organization

Almost all people spend most of their time at work. In the course of performing duties, disputes and contradictions often arise between employees. Conflicts in interpersonal relationships that occur in organizations very often hinder the company's activities and worsen the overall result.

Conflicts in organizations can occur both between employees holding the same position, and between subordinates and superiors. The reasons for the occurrence of conflicts can be different. This is the shifting of responsibilities to each other, and the feeling of unfair treatment of management, and the dependence of the result of employees on each other.

Not only disagreements over working moments, but also problems in communication between colleagues can provoke a conflict in an organization. Most often, the confrontation can be eliminated by employees on their own through negotiations. Sometimes the management of interpersonal conflicts is taken over by the head of the organization, he finds out the causes and tries to resolve the problems that have arisen. It happens that the case may end with the dismissal of one of the conflicting parties.

Interpersonal conflicts of spouses

Family life involves the constant solution of all kinds of everyday problems. Very often, spouses cannot find agreement on certain issues, resulting in interpersonal conflict. An example of this: the husband returned from work too late, the wife did not have time to cook dinner, the husband scattered dirty socks around the apartment.

Material problems significantly aggravate conflicts. Many domestic quarrels could be avoided if each family had enough funds. The husband does not want to help his wife wash the dishes - we will buy a dishwasher, there is a dispute over which channel we will watch - it does not matter, we will take another TV. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford this.

Each family chooses its own strategy for resolving interpersonal conflicts. Someone quickly concedes and goes to reconciliation, some can live for a long time in a state of quarrel and not talk to each other. It is very important that discontent does not accumulate, the spouses find a compromise, and all problems are resolved as quickly as possible.

Interpersonal conflicts of people of different generations

The conflict of "fathers and sons" can be considered in a broad and narrow sense. In the first case, it occurs within a single family, while in the second it is projected onto the whole society as a whole. This problem has existed at all times, it is not new for our century either.

The conflict of generations occurs because of the difference in views, worldview, norms and values ​​of young people and people of more mature age. However, this difference need not provoke conflict. The reason for the struggle of generations is the unwillingness to understand and respect the interests of each other.

The main features of interpersonal conflicts of generations are that they are much longer in nature and do not develop in certain stages. They can periodically subside and flare up again with renewed vigor in the event of a sharp infringement of the interests of the parties.

In order for your family not to be affected by generational conflict, you must constantly show respect and patience with each other. Old people should often remember that they were once young and did not want to listen to advice, and young people should not forget that in many years they will also become old.

Is it possible to live your whole life without conflict with anyone?

Few people like the constant swearing and quarrels. Many people would dream of living without ever having conflict with anyone. However, this is not possible in our society at the moment.

From early childhood, a person is in conflict with others. For example, the kids did not share toys, the child does not obey his parents. In adolescence, generational conflict often comes first.

Throughout our lives, we have to periodically defend our interests, prove our case. At the same time, conflicts cannot be avoided. We can only reduce the number of conflicts to a minimum, try not to succumb to provocations and avoid quarrels without good reasons.

Rules of conduct in a conflict situation

When a conflict arises, both participants want to resolve it as soon as possible, while achieving their goals and getting what they want. How should one behave in this situation in order to get out of it with dignity?

First you need to learn to separate the attitude towards the person with whom there was a disagreement, from the very problem that needs to be solved. Do not start insulting your opponent, get personal, try to behave with restraint and calmness. Argument all your arguments, try to put yourself in the place of the enemy and invite him to take your place.

If you notice that you are starting to lose your temper, invite your interlocutor to take a break to calm down and cool down a bit, and then continue to sort things out. To solve the problem as soon as possible, you need to see a specific goal and focus on ways to achieve it. It is important to remember that in any conflict situation, it is necessary first of all to maintain relations with the opponent.

Ways to get out of a conflict situation

The most successful way out is to find a compromise by the warring parties. In this case, the parties make a decision that suits all parties to the dispute. There are no reticences and misunderstandings between the conflicting parties.

However, not in all cases it is possible to reach a compromise. Very often the outcome of the conflict is coercion. This version of the outcome of the conflict is most typical if one of the participants occupies a dominant position. For example, a leader forces a subordinate to do as he pleases, or a parent tells his child to do as he sees fit.

In order to prevent the conflict from gaining strength, you can try to smooth it out. In this case, the person who is accused of something agrees with the reproaches and claims, tries to explain the reason for his actions and deeds. The use of this method of getting out of the dispute does not mean that the essence of the conflict is understood, and mistakes are recognized. Just at the moment the accused does not want to enter into a conflict.

Admitting your mistakes and repentance for what you have done is another way to resolve interpersonal conflict. An example of such a situation: the child regrets that he did not prepare the lessons and received a deuce, and promises his parents to continue to do homework.

How to prevent interpersonal conflicts

Each person should always remember that absolutely any dispute is better to prevent than to deal with its consequences later and repair damaged relationships. What is the prevention of interpersonal conflicts?

First you need to limit your communication with the potential to the maximum. These can be arrogant, aggressive, secretive personalities. If it is not possible to completely stop communicating with such people, try to ignore their provocations and always remain calm.

To prevent conflict situations, you need to learn how to negotiate with the interlocutor, try to find an approach to any person, respect your opponent and clearly formulate your positions.

In what situations should you not fight?

Before entering into a conflict, you need to think carefully about whether you really need it. Very often people begin to sort things out in cases where it does not make sense at all.

If your interests are not directly affected, and during the dispute you will not achieve your goals, most likely it makes no sense to enter into an interpersonal conflict. An example of a similar situation: on the bus, the conductor starts arguing with the passenger. Even if you support the position of one of the disputants, you should not get involved in their conflict without a good reason.

If you see that the level of your opponent is radically different from yours, there is no point in entering into an argument and discussion with such people. You will never prove to a stupid person that you are right.

Before getting involved in a conflict, you need to evaluate all the pros and cons, think about what consequences it can lead to, how your relationship with your opponent will change, and whether you want it, how likely it is that during the dispute you will be able to achieve your goals. Also, great attention should be paid to your emotions at the time of the threat of a quarrel. Perhaps you should use the tactics of avoiding the conflict, cool down a little and think carefully about the current situation.