Positive sides of the conflict. Conflict for the good Positive functions of intragroup conflicts

03.01.2022

Introduction

Chapter 1. The concept of conflict.

clause 1.1. Definition of conflict.

clause 1.2. Typology of conflict. Causes of conflicts.

clause 1.4. Structure of the conflict.

clause 2.2. Map of the conflict.

clause 2.3. Conflict resolution in the personal and emotional sphere.

Conclusion.

Literature.

Introduction.

The most important issue in social psychology is the problem of groups into which people are united in the course of their life activities. And it’s no secret that in any association of people there are bound to be disagreements, sometimes developing into conflict.

Memories of conflicts usually evoke unpleasant associations: threats, hostility, misunderstanding, attempts, sometimes hopeless, to prove that one is right, resentment... As a result, the opinion has developed that conflict is always a negative phenomenon, undesirable for each of us. Conflicts are seen as something that should be avoided whenever possible.

Representatives of early schools of management, including supporters of the school of human relations, believed that conflict is a sign of ineffective organizational performance and poor management. Nowadays, management theorists and practitioners are increasingly inclined to the point of view that some conflicts, even in the most effective organization with the best relationships, they are not only possible, but also desirable, despite the fact that it is nevertheless necessary to regulate them. Let's try to confirm this hypothesis using the example of a team of an organization.

Chapter 1. The concept of conflict.

clause 1.1. Definition of conflict.

What is conflict?

There are different definitions of conflict, but they all emphasize the presence of contradiction, which takes the form of disagreement when it comes to the interaction of people.

In psychology conflict is defined as “a collision of oppositely directed, mutually incompatible tendencies, a single episode in consciousness, in interpersonal interactions or interpersonal relationships individuals or groups of people associated with negative emotional experiences."

Conflicts can be hidden or overt, but at their core is a lack of agreement. Therefore, we define conflict as a lack of agreement between two or more parties - individuals or groups.

Lack of agreement is due to the presence of diverse opinions, views, ideas, interests, points of view, etc. However, as already noted, it is not always expressed in the form of an obvious clash or conflict. This happens only when existing contradictions and disagreements disrupt the normal interaction of people and prevent the achievement of their goals. In this case, people are simply forced to somehow overcome differences and enter into open conflict interaction. In the process of conflict interaction, its participants will have the opportunity to express different opinions, identify more alternatives when making a decision, and this is precisely the important positive meaning of the conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the conflict is always positive.

clause 1.2. Typology of conflict. Causes of conflicts.

The division of conflicts into types is quite arbitrary, there is a rigid boundary between various types does not exist and in practice conflicts arise that can be classified depending on the criteria that are taken as a basis. So, for example, a conflict can be intrapersonal (between family sympathies and a manager’s sense of duty), interpersonal (between a manager and his deputy regarding a position, a bonus between employees); between an individual and the organization to which he belongs; between organizations or groups of the same or different status.

It is also possible to classify conflicts horizontally (between ordinary employees who are not subordinate to each other), vertically (between people who are subordinate to each other) and mixed, in which both are represented. The most common conflicts are vertical and mixed. On average they make up 70-80% of all others. They are also the most undesirable for a leader, since in them he is, as it were, “tied hand and foot.” The fact is that in this case, every action of the manager is considered by all employees through the prism of this conflict.

Classification according to the nature of the reasons that caused the conflict is also acceptable. It is not possible to list all the reasons for the conflict. But in general, it is caused, as R.L. Krichevsky points out in the book “If you are a leader,” by the following three groups of reasons, conditioned by:

* labor process;

* psychological characteristics of human relationships, that is, their likes and dislikes, cultural, ethnic differences between people, the actions of the leader, poor psychological communication, etc.;

* personal identity of group members, for example, inability to control their emotional state, aggressiveness, lack of communication, tactlessness.

Conflicts are distinguished by their significance for the organization, as well as the method of resolving them. There are constructive and destructive conflicts. For constructive conflicts characterized by disagreements that affect fundamental aspects, problems of the life of the organization and its members, and the resolution of which takes the organization to a new, higher and more effective level of development. Destructive conflicts lead to negative, often destructive actions, which sometimes develop into squabbles and other negative phenomena, which leads to a sharp decrease in the effectiveness of the group or organization.

The conflicts considered can perform a variety of functions, both positive and negative. The main functions of conflicts are presented in Table No. 1.

Table No. 1

Conflict functions

Positive	Negative
détente between conflicting parties	large emotional and material costs of participating in the conflict
receiving new information about your opponent	dismissal of employees, decreased discipline, deterioration of the socio-psychological climate in the team
unity of the organization's team in confrontation with an external enemy	viewing defeated groups as enemies
stimulation for change and development	excessive involvement in the process of conflict interaction to the detriment of work
removing the submissive syndrome in subordinates	after the end of the conflict - a decrease in the degree of cooperation between some employees
diagnostics of opponents' capabilities	complex restoration of business relations (“trail of conflict”)

clause 1.3. The main stages of the conflict.

Conflicts, despite their specificity and diversity, generally have common stages of progression:

* the stage of potential formation of conflicting interests, values, norms;

* the stage of transition of a potential conflict into a real one or the stage of awareness by the participants in the conflict of their correctly or falsely understood interests;

* stage of conflict actions;

* stage of removing or resolving the conflict.

clause 1.4. Structure of the conflict.

Moreover, every conflict also has more or less clearly defined structure. In any conflict there is an object conflict situation, associated either with technological and organizational difficulties, peculiarities of remuneration, or with the specifics of business and personal relations of the conflicting parties.

The second element of the conflict goals and subjective motives appear its participants, determined by their views and beliefs, material and spiritual interests.

And finally, in any conflict it is important to distinguish between direct occasion collisions from genuine it reasons, often hidden.

Objective reasons will only cause conflict when they make it impossible for an individual or group to realize their needs and affect personal and/or group interests. The reaction of an individual is largely determined by the maturity of the individual, the norms of behavior acceptable to him, and the social norms and rules accepted in the team. In addition, an individual’s participation in a conflict is determined by the significance of the goals set for him and the extent to which the obstacle that arises prevents them from realizing them. The more important the subject’s goal is, the more effort he makes to achieve it, the stronger the resistance will be and the harsher the conflict interaction with those who interfere with this.

The choice of a method to overcome obstacles will, in turn, depend on the emotional stability of the individual, the available means of protecting one’s interests, the amount of available power and many other factors. An attempt to end a conflict situation by force or persuasion often leads to its growth and expansion by attracting new individuals, groups or organizations.

Psychological protection of the individual occurs unconsciously as a system of personality stabilization to protect the individual’s sphere of consciousness from negative psychological influences. As a result of the conflict, this system works involuntarily, against the will and desire of the person. The need for such protection arises when thoughts and feelings appear that pose a threat to self-esteem, the formed “I-image” of the individual, the system value orientations that reduce an individual's self-esteem.

In some cases, the individual’s perception of the situation may be far from the real state of affairs, but the person’s reaction to the situation will be formed based on his perception, from what seems to him, and this circumstance significantly complicates the resolution of the conflict. Negative emotions arising as a result of the conflict can quickly be transferred from the problem to the personality of the opponent, which will complement the conflict with personal opposition. The more the conflict intensifies, the more unsightly the opponent’s image looks, which further complicates its resolution. A vicious circle appears that is extremely difficult to break. It is advisable to do this at the initial stage of the development of the event, before the situation gets out of control.

Chapter 2. Methods of conflict resolution.

clause 2.1. Basic styles of leader behavior in conflict situations.

Let us first consider a person’s behavior in a conflict situation from the point of view of its compliance with psychological standards. This model of behavior is based on the ideas of E. Melibruda, Siegert and Laite. Its essence is as follows. It is believed that constructive conflict resolution depends on the following factors:

Adequacy of the perception of the conflict, that is, a fairly accurate assessment of the actions and intentions of both the enemy and one’s own, not distorted by personal biases;

Openness and effectiveness of communication, readiness for a comprehensive discussion of problems, when participants honestly express their understanding of what is happening and ways out of a conflict situation;

Creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation.

It is also useful for a manager to know what character traits and behavioral characteristics of a person are characteristic of conflict personality. Summarizing the research of psychologists, we can say that such qualities can include the following:

Inadequate self-esteem of one’s capabilities and abilities, which can be either overestimated or underestimated. In both cases, it may contradict the adequate assessment of others - and the ground is ready for a conflict to arise;

The desire to dominate at all costs where it is possible and impossible;

Conservatism of thinking, views, beliefs, unwillingness to overcome outdated traditions;

Excessive adherence to principles and straightforwardness in statements and judgments, the desire to tell the truth at all costs;

A certain set of emotional personality traits: anxiety, aggressiveness, stubbornness, irritability.

K.U. Thomas and R.H. Kilman developed the basic most acceptable strategies for behavior in conflict situations. They point out that there are five basic styles of conflict behavior: accommodation, compromise, cooperation, ignoring, rivalry or competition. The style of behavior in a particular conflict, they point out, is determined by the extent to which you want to satisfy your own interests, while acting passively or actively, and the interests of the other party, acting jointly or individually. Let us consider them, for example, from the point of view of the head of the organization.

So, it is necessary to identify the most appropriate style of behavior for a given situation and a given person.

Style of competition, rivalry can be used by a person who has a strong will, sufficient authority, power, who is not very interested in cooperation with the other party and who strives primarily to satisfy his own interests. It can be used if:

* the outcome of the conflict is very important to you and you place a big bet on your solution to the problem that has arisen;

* feel that you have no other choice and have nothing to lose;

* must make an unpopular decision and you have enough authority to choose this step;

* interact with subordinates who prefer an authoritarian style.

However, it should be borne in mind that this is not a style that can be used in close personal relationships, since it cannot cause anything other than a feeling of alienation. It is also inappropriate to use it in a situation where you do not have sufficient power, and your point of view on some issue differs from the point of view of your boss.

Collaboration style can be used if, while defending your own interests, you are forced to take into account the needs and desires of the other party. This style is the most difficult as it requires longer work. The purpose of its application is to develop a long-term mutually beneficial solution. This style requires the ability to explain your desires and listen to each other, and restrain your emotions. The absence of one of these factors makes this style ineffective. To resolve conflict, this style can be used in the following situations:

*need to find common decision, if each of the approaches to the problem is important and does not allow compromise solutions;

* you have a long-term, strong and interdependent relationship with the other party;

* the main goal is to gain joint work experience;

* the parties are able to listen to each other and outline the essence of their interests;

* it is necessary to integrate points of view and strengthen the personal involvement of employees in activities.

Compromise style. Its essence lies in the fact that the parties seek to resolve differences through mutual concessions. In this regard, it is somewhat reminiscent of the style of cooperation, but it is carried out on a more superficial level, since the parties are inferior to each other in some way. This style is the most effective, both parties want the same thing, but know that it is impossible to achieve at the same time. For example, the desire to occupy the same position or the same work premises. When using this style, the emphasis is not on a solution that satisfies the interests of both parties, but on an option that can be expressed in the words: “We cannot fully fulfill our desires, therefore, it is necessary to come to a decision with which each of us could agree.” .

This approach to conflict resolution can be used in the following situations:

* both sides have equally convincing arguments and have equal power;

* satisfying your desire is not very important for you great importance;

* you may be satisfied with a temporary solution, since there is no time to develop another, or other approaches to solving the problem turned out to be ineffective;

* a compromise will allow you to gain at least something rather than lose everything.

Evasion style usually occurs when the problem at hand is not that important to you, you do not defend your rights, do not cooperate with anyone to develop a solution, and do not want to waste time and effort on solving it. This style is also recommended in cases where one of the parties has more power or feels that he is in the wrong, or believes that there are no serious reasons for continuing contact.

* the source of disagreement is trivial and unimportant for you compared to other more important tasks, and therefore you believe that it is not worth wasting energy on it;

* you know that you cannot or even do not want to resolve the issue in your favor;

* you have little power to solve the problem in the way you want;

* want to gain time to study the situation and obtain additional information before making any decision;

* trying to solve the problem immediately is dangerous, since opening and discussing the conflict can only worsen the situation;

* subordinates themselves can successfully resolve the conflict;

* you had a difficult day, and solving this problem may bring additional troubles.

You should not think that this style is an escape from a problem or an evasion of responsibility. In fact, leaving or delaying may be an appropriate response to a conflict situation, since in the meantime it may resolve itself, or you can deal with it later when you have sufficient information and a desire to resolve it.

Fixture style will mean that you act jointly with the other party, but do not try to defend your own interests in order to smooth the atmosphere and restore a normal working atmosphere. Thomas and Kilmann believe that this style is most effective when the outcome of the case is extremely important to the other party and not very significant to you, or when you are sacrificing your own interests for the benefit of the other party.

The style of adaptation can be applied in the following most typical situations:

* the most important task is to restore calm and stability, and not resolve the conflict;

* the subject of disagreement is not important for you or you are not particularly concerned about what happened;

* realize that the truth is not on your side;

*feel like you don't have enough power or a chance to win.

Just as no leadership style can be effective in all situations without exception, none of the conflict resolution styles discussed can be singled out as the best. We must learn to use each of them effectively and consciously make one or another choice, taking into account specific circumstances.

clause 2.2. Map of the conflict.

For more successful conflict resolution, it is advisable not only to choose a style, but also to draw up conflict map, developed by H. Cornelius and S. Fair. Its essence is as follows:

Define the conflict problem in general terms. For example, if there is a conflict over the amount of work being performed, draw up a load distribution chart;

Find out who is involved in the conflict (individuals, groups, departments or organizations);

Identify the true needs and concerns of each of the main parties to the conflict.

Drawing up such a map, according to experts, will allow:

1) limit the discussion to a certain formal framework, which will greatly help avoid excessive expression of emotions, since people can restrain themselves while drawing up a map;

2) create the opportunity to jointly discuss the problem, express to people their demands and desires;

3) understand both your own point of view and the point of view of others;

4) create an atmosphere of empathy, i.e. the opportunity to see a problem through the eyes of other people and to recognize the opinions of people who previously believed that they were not understood;

5) choose new ways to resolve the conflict.

But before moving on to resolving the conflict, try to answer the following questions:

do you want a favorable outcome?
what you need to do to better control your emotions;
how would you feel in the place of the conflicting parties;
is a mediator needed to resolve the conflict;
in what atmosphere (situation) people could do a better job of opening up, finding common ground, and coming up with their own solutions.

clause 2.3. Conflict resolution in the personal and emotional sphere.

However, conflicts have to be resolved not only in a business form, but also in personal-emotional sphere. When resolving them, other methods are used, since in them, as a rule, it is difficult to identify the object of disagreement and there is no conflict of interests. How to behave with a “conflict personality”? There is only one way - to “pick up the key”. To do this, try to see in him a friend and the best features (qualities) of his personality, since you will no longer be able to change either his system of views and values, or his psychological characteristics and features nervous system. If they were unable to “find the key to him,” then there is only one remedy left - to transfer such a person to the category of spontaneous action.

Thus, in a conflict situation or when dealing with a difficult person, you should use the approach that is most appropriate for the particular circumstances and in which you feel most comfortable. The best advisers in choosing the optimal approach to conflict resolution are life experience and the desire not to complicate the situation and not bring a person to stress. You can, for example, reach a compromise, adapt to the needs of another person (especially a partner or loved one); persistently pursue the realization of one’s true interests in another aspect; avoid discussion conflict issue, if it is not very important to you; use a collaborative style to satisfy the most important interests of both parties.

Conclusion.

Thus, based on the above, we can conclude that the best way Resolving a conflict situation is a conscious choice of the optimal strategy of behavior. The “color” of the conflict also depends on this, that is, what role (positive or negative) it will play on the relationships of the team or group. Consequently, our hypothesis regarding the desirability of some conflicts when properly resolved is confirmed.

I would like to finish my work with the words of H.L. Martina Descalso from the novel “White and Black”: “In two cases out of three, people quarrel because they do not trust each other. They imagine that behind the most innocent remark there are all sorts of ulterior motives. They want the whole world to think alike. The ideas may be the same, but they are colored by different experiences and the forms of their expression are different.

If we can at least somehow restrain ourselves and postpone the showdown until the next day, when we have cooled down a little and are able to speak out more clearly, the quarrels will practically stop.”

Literature.

“In relationships with loved ones there are no trifles.”/ Reader’s Digest/Reader’s Digest Publishing House, (July) 1998.
Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M. 1979.
Vasilyev V.L. Ethics in jurisprudence and business. -M., 1995.
Cornelius H., Fair S. Everyone can win. -M., 1992.
Brief psychological dictionary / Ed. A.V. Petrovsky, N.G. Yaroshevsky. -M.
Krichevsky R.L. If you are a leader... - M.: Delo, 1993.
Practical psychology for managers / Ed. Tutushkina M.K. - M.1996.
Social Psychology. /Ed. Prevechnogo G.P., Sherkovina Yu.N. M.: Politizdat. 1975.
Social Psychology. /Ed. Semenova V.E., Kuzmina E.S. and others. Leningrad State University. 1974.
Organizational personnel management. / V.O. Infra-M, M., 1997.
Borodkin F.N., Koryak N.N. “Attention, conflict!”, Novosibirsk. 1983.
Ageev V.S. “Intergroup interaction. Social and psychological problems.” MSU, M., 1990.

Conflict- a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of two or more people. There are many types of conflicts; they can be classified, for example, by factors. Thus, according to their direction, conflicts are divided into horizontal (they do not involve people subordinate to each other), vertical (between managers and subordinates) and mixed (between a manager and subordinates who are not directly subordinate).

Another typology of conflicts is presented in Fig. 12.1.

Rice. 12.1. Typology of conflicts

By origin. Conflicts can be objectively determined. These are those conflicts that are associated with objective reasons and do not depend on the relationships of workers (unclear division of labor and responsibility, social tension, etc.). Subjectively determined conflicts are associated with the personal characteristics of those in conflict and with situations that interfere with the fulfillment of desires and the satisfaction of people’s Interests.

By nature of occurrence. Social conflicts can be distinguished - highest stage social contradictions in the system of relations of social groups. Organizational conflicts - improper regulation of an individual's activities (job descriptions, management structures). Emotional conflicts - dissatisfaction of the interests of an individual, clashes with others (envy, hostility, antipathies). Sometimes it is very difficult to outwardly determine the motivation for such a conflict.

According to the duration of conflicts are short-term. They arise due to misunderstandings or mistakes; usually they are quickly recognized and resolved. Protracted conflicts are often associated with moral and psychological trauma. The duration of such conflicts depends on the characteristics of the people in conflict and on the subject of the conflict.

By direction of impact conflicts are vertical. They involve people at different social levels: boss - subordinate, department - institution, etc. The conflicting parties initially have an unequal amount of power. In a horizontal conflict, the parties have an equal amount of power and are at the same hierarchical level (heads of departments, suppliers among themselves, etc.).

By severity of conflicts are open (impulse) - this is a direct collision of the parties, it manifests itself in arguments, shouting, fights, etc. The regulation of such conflicts will depend on the level of their manifestation and on the situation itself. Measures can be legal, social, and even international. Hidden conflicts (latent) do not have a pronounced form; they occur hidden, but indirectly affect the opposite side. Most often, this happens when it is impossible to openly resolve the conflict (the difference in the social status of the parties: boss - subordinate, apprehension and even fear for one’s well-being arises). Regulatory measures in this case depend on the individual, the level of her upbringing, and moral and ethical principles. The presence of an object and an opponent creates a conflict situation. But a conflict situation does not always provoke a conflict. If there is no incident, then we can talk about a potential conflict.

The scale of the conflict (in terms of the number of participants) may be small. Thus, intrapersonal conflict consists of a collision of oppositely directed, but equal in strength, motives, needs and interests within the individual - one person. It can arise due to a discrepancy between external requirements and internal values and needs of the individual. Interpersonal conflicts arise due to claims on limited resources. Intergroup conflicts arise within the same group or between groups. For example, between formal and informal groups. Conflict between an individual and a group is the contradiction that arises between the requirements of the individual and the norms established in the group. There may also be a conflict between the manager and employees due to different views on the management system.

By resolution method conflicts are antagonistic. They are resolved by forcing all participants except one to renounce any claims. Compromise conflicts are resolved through mutual agreement of the conflicting parties.

There are many different opinions about the benefits or harms of conflict situations. Conflicts are an extremely complex and contradictory phenomenon that cannot be defined unambiguously. Conflicts can play both a negative and a positive role. Despite all the pros and cons, conflicts are inevitable. Let us carefully consider the positive and negative functions of conflicts.

Positive functions of conflict:

1 helps to identify a problem and consider it from different points of view;

* relieves tension between parties to the conflict;

* makes it possible to better know the properties of your opponent;

directs relationships in a new direction;

Stimulates change and development;

The cohesion of like-minded people is growing;

Stimulates creative activity.

Negative functions of conflict:

Causes strong emotional stress;

Increases nervousness, creates stress;

Employee layoffs occur;

Reduces the level of cooperation and mutual understanding;

Damages work;

Creates the belief that "victory" more important than the decision conflict in essence.

Modern understanding of conflicts in social sciences is based on the idea of the positive functions of conflict.

This is easily accepted when it comes to the theoretical arguments of sociologists about the processes occurring in social systems. But the psychologist deals with living people and sees in front of him a suffering person who is having a hard time experiencing life’s difficulties, which can be emotionally difficult to combine with reasoning about the benefits of conflicts.

However, modern psychology is also characterized by the recognition of the dual nature of conflict, including its positive role.

Conflict is the source of development. The most important positive function of conflict is that, being a form of contradiction, conflict is a source of development. The more significant the conflict is for the participants in the situation, the potentially stronger its impact on their intellectual development. The thesis about contradictions as a source of group development, including possible competitive processes, can also be considered generally accepted. Thus, B.F. Lomov believes that in joint activities“rivalry (cooperation) plays the role of a kind of “catalyst” for the development of abilities.” Competition plays a similar function in stimulating activity and development in a group.

Conflict is a signal for change. Of the other positive functions of conflict, the most obvious is the signaling function. Discussing the types of critical situations, F. E. Vasilyuk emphasizes the positive role, the “need” of internal conflicts for life: “They signal objective contradictions in life relationships and provide a chance to resolve them before a real collision of these relationships, fraught with disastrous consequences.”

Conflicts perform a similar signaling function in interpersonal relationships. Let’s take the relationship between parents and child as an example. If parents perceive the child’s disagreement, his new claims and attempts to discuss them with parents solely as disobedience, then they will fight his disobedience, insist on their own, and thereby most likely worsen, and perhaps even destroy, their relationship with the child. The gradually accumulating tension is like steam, the pressure of which bursts a tightly closed boiler.

A constructive response would be to perceive what is happening not as disobedience, but as a signal of the need for change. Perhaps an analogy with pain would be appropriate here. The pain is unpleasant, but any doctor will tell you that it serves an important and useful function. Pain is a signal that something is wrong in the body. By ignoring or drowning out the pain with sedative pills, we remain with the disease. Conflict, like pain, serves as a signal, telling us that something is wrong in our relationships or in ourselves. And if we, in response to this signal, try to make changes in our interaction, we come to a new state of adaptation in the relationship. If we reach a new level of adaptation at each stage of our relationships, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationships.

Conflict is an opportunity for rapprochement. Examples can be found on psychological material that illustrate other positive functions of conflict, for example, “communicative-informational” and “connective” (in Coser’s terminology).

As an example, here is the story of one young woman. She got married very early, she was not yet nineteen years old. Her chosen one was several years older than her, and although he was also young, it seemed to her that he was wiser and more experienced. Perhaps this is what led to the fact that, despite her good relationship with him, she felt some kind of constraint in her soul, felt the distance separating them. After the birth of the child, their relationship began to deteriorate and finally approached that dangerous point, after which, perhaps, separation awaited them. However, there was that often unexpected breakthrough for which there is always hope. They began to sort out their relationship and during this frank conversation they understood each other. Having told this rather banal story, the woman added at the end: “I am so glad that this conflict was between us then. Because since then my husband and I have become absolutely close people to each other. I can tell him anything and everything that’s on my soul.”

She associates this new level of relations between them with the conflict that occurred. The moment of breakthrough, when people have nothing to lose when they try to break through to each other, can be their last opportunity for mutual understanding. No wonder sociologists of the Chicago school said: “Conflict is an opportunity to talk openly.”

Positive functions of intragroup conflicts. The traditional point of view not only of sociologists, but also of psychologists who worked with groups was that conflicts are a negative phenomenon for the group and the task is to eliminate them. The tendency to seek social harmony in groups dates back to the “human relations” school: avoiding conflict, seen as a “social disease”, and promoting “equilibrium” or a “state of cooperation”. However, thanks to the conflict, it becomes possible to initially establish unity or restore it if it was previously broken. Of course, not every type of conflict will contribute to the strengthening of the group, just as not in all groups conflict can realize similar functions. The presence of these positive conflict potentials is determined by its type, as well as by the characteristics of the group.

Every group contains the potential for conflict due to the periodic rivalry between the demands of individuals. The nature of the group will significantly influence the characteristics of these conflicts, in particular their functions. Thus, Coser believes that the closer the group, the more intense the conflict. If, nevertheless, a conflict arises in such a close-knit group, then it will proceed with particular intensity due to the “accumulated” discontent and complete personal involvement characteristic of a group with close ties. Conflict in groups of this type will threaten their very foundations and therefore be destructive.

The nature of the group’s relations with the group will also be significant for intragroup conflict. external environment. Thus, groups that are in a state of more or less constant confrontation with other groups will tend to more fully involve their members personally in common activities and to suppress deviations from group unity and disagreement. Greater tolerance to intragroup conflicts will be characteristic of groups whose relations with the external environment are more balanced.

Internal conflict also serves as a means of identifying conflicting interests among group members and thereby contributes to the possibility of a new agreement, ensuring the restoration of the necessary balance.

Conflicts often lead to the creation of associations and coalitions within groups, which ensures interaction between members of the entire association, reduces isolation, and creates the ground for individual activity of group members.

In general, pointing out the positive possibilities of conflict in flexible social structures, L. Coser calls it the most important stabilizing mechanism, a mechanism for adapting norms to new conditions.

It is interesting that R. May considers it possible to use the same technique of intensifying experiences to initiate a beneficial crisis in psychotherapeutic practice. He writes about how he once received an extremely emotional letter from a young man who asked him for help: “In my response letter, I aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he was accustomed to his position as a spoiled child, who was always carried around, and now in his suffering there is nothing but self-pity and a complete lack of courage to cope with the current situation. I deliberately did not leave any loophole to save the prestige of his “I”. May believes, judging by the response, that his goal has been achieved and has led to constructive steps.

Emphasizing the potential positive possibilities of conflict should not make us forget about its likely destructive role in the life of an individual. The idea can be considered generally accepted not only of the positive significance of an individual’s effective resolution and overcoming of emerging intrapersonal crises, conflicts, and contradictions, but also of the negative and even destructive impact that their failure to overcome can have on the development of a healthy personality. We can evaluate a person's recovery from a conflict or crisis as productive if, as a result, he is truly “freed” from the problem that gave rise to it in such a way that the experience makes him more mature, psychologically adequate and integrated.

The emotional experience of a crisis situation, no matter how strong it may be, does not in itself lead to overcoming it. In the same way, analyzing a situation and thinking about it only leads to a better understanding of it. The real problem lies in the creation of new meaning, in “meaning generation”, “meaning construction”, when the result of the internal work of the individual to overcome, experience critical life situations changes occur in her inner subjective world - acquiring a new meaning, a new value attitude, restoration peace of mind etc.

On the contrary, those strategies that, in essence, are psychologically ineffective, no matter how the individual himself evaluates them, actually turn out to be aimed at weakening, mitigating the severity of the crisis being experienced and the accompanying emotional states. If we recall the previously used medical analogy, we can say that in the first case, a person, having felt pain, tries to find out its cause and cope with it by curing the disease, and in the second case, he simply takes pills, trying to drown out the unpleasant sensations.

The general practical position can be expressed in the already quoted words of R. May: “...Our task is to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.”

Natalia Grishina
Based on materials from Elitarium

Psychology: personality and business

Keywords:

1 -1

Constructive (positive) functions of conflict. These include:

- group formation, establishing and maintaining normative and physical group boundaries. It is a widely known statement that it is easier to be friends against someone. Undoubtedly, an external enemy can help strengthen consolidation between group members. And this mechanism has been used repeatedly in the history of politics;
- establishing and maintaining a relatively stable structure of intragroup and intergroup relations, integration and identification, socialization and adaptation of both individuals and groups. A positive way out of the conflict could be a more clear set of rules for intergroup interaction, demarcation of boundaries between groups or divisions, areas of their competence and responsibility;
- obtaining information about the environment social environment . Conflict can be used as a tool to gain a deeper understanding of the situation. A similar function uses the so-called reconnaissance in force;
- creating and maintaining a balance of power, and in particular power, social control. The conflict can lead to a redistribution of power, a legislative statement of new realities, a new balance of power that more adequately meets the current situation;
- rule-making. With a positive resolution of the conflict, new rules of relations between the subjects of the conflict and between third forces, whose interests also appeared in its course, are fixed;
- creation of new social institutions. Conflict is one of the founders of new organizations and areas of activity. Big number organizations arose in the process and as a result of the separation of groups of employees from the parent organization. It was the conflict that allowed them to unite and realize the differences between their interests and the interests of their former colleagues and leaders.

Dysfunctional (destructive, negative) functions of conflict - lead to a decrease in personal satisfaction, destroy group cooperation. If the psychological climate deteriorates and confrontation intensifies, we can assume that conflicts perform a negative function. They arise as a result of socio-psychological incompatibility of people and make it difficult to make the necessary decisions. The following destructive functions of conflict are distinguished:
- deterioration of the socio-psychological climate, dismissal of employees, reduction of discipline;

- decreased cooperation between conflicting parties;
- material and emotional costs;
- spirit of confrontation, drawing people into struggle and making them strive more for victory than for solving real problems;
- inadequate perception and misunderstanding of each other by the conflicting parties.

Forms of leader behavior in conflict: avoidance, confrontation, compliance, cooperation, compromise

The basis of a leader’s behavior in a conflict situation is his attitude towards conflicts, determined primarily by his idea of the role of conflict. Based on different understandings of the role of conflict in the life of an organization, the following forms of behavior of managers can be distinguished.
Suppression. This form behavior in conflict is characteristic of an authoritarian leader. For him, victory over the opposing side is a condition for maintaining and strengthening his authority. Without rejecting the importance of conflict, he recognizes only those conflicts in which he wins as useful and constructive.
Avoidance. This form of behavior is characteristic of a leader with a liberal leadership style. In addition to the belief in the uselessness and harmfulness of all conflicts that destroy the already precarious balance in people’s relationships, this leader has a dislike for all kinds of emotional manifestations that accompany the conflict. At the same time, as a consequence of such conviction and hostility, this leader lacks the fighting qualities necessary to participate in the conflict, which dooms him in advance to defeat. Knowing this, he strives to avoid any aggravation of relations, no matter how serious the problem that gives rise to it.

Cooperation. This norm of behavior is characteristic of a leader of a democratic style. What is important for him is not victory in the conflict, but the business side of the issue: when encountering resistance, an objection to his position, he tries to figure out whether it is possible to use the objection to correct his attitude or to develop a different, more successful understanding of the issue or its solution. He is not put off by the critical form of his opponent’s statements. On the contrary, the stronger the resistance he encounters, the greater the desire to attract a strong opponent to his side, to find common interests, and to join forces.
Compliance. This form of leader behavior, as in the case of avoidance, is characterized by an attitude towards conflict as an undesirable phenomenon, no matter what the reasons for it. The main task of the leader in this case is to maintain favorable relationships. The leader is characterized by increased attention to the interests and goals of the enemy, a willingness to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of maintaining a calm socio-psychological climate in the team. This form of behavior leads to the oblivion of the interests of the business, the loss of not only informal, but also formal authority by the leader.
Compromise. This form of behavior is similar to cooperation, since it also allows for the possibility of coordinating interests, and with compliance, since it presupposes the possibility of giving in, and at the same time differs from both forms of behavior. The main difference is that both cooperation and concession in compromise are possible only in response to similar actions of the other party. Compromise, therefore, is a formal solution to a conflict at the cost of mutual concessions.

In discussing the understanding of conflict in the social sciences, it has been noted that modern point perspective comes from the idea of the positive functions of conflict.

However, modern psychology is also characterized by the recognition of the dual nature of conflict, including its positive role.

Conflict is the source of development. The most important positive function of conflict is that, being a form of contradiction, conflict is a source of development. This function of conflict, taking the form of a crisis, found its most obvious expression in Erikson’s concept. Along with it, there are many other, more specific applications of the general thesis about the positive role of pro-

contradictions in the development of the individual. For example, a number of studies based on the ideas of Jean Piaget and his school have shown that socio-cognitive conflicts can be a source of intellectual development in children. Socio-cognitive conflict refers to a situation where individuals have different answers to the same problem and are motivated to reach a joint solution. The more significant this conflict is for the participants in the situation, the stronger its potential impact on their intellectual development (Levine, Resnick, Higgins, 1993). The thesis about contradictions as a source of group development, including possible competitive processes, can also be considered generally accepted. Thus, B.F. Lomov believes that in joint activities “rivalry (cooperation) plays the role of a kind of “catalyst” for the development of abilities” (Lomov, 1984, p. 325). Competition plays a similar function in stimulating activity and development in a group. The acceptance of this point of view was manifested in the fact that the term “productive conflict” was first introduced into the psychological dictionary in 1990 (Psychology. Dictionary, 1990).

Conflict is a signal for change. Of the other positive functions of conflict, the most obvious is the signaling function. Discussing the types of critical situations, F. E. Vasilyuk emphasizes the positive role, the “need” of internal conflicts for life: “They signal the objective contradictions of life relationships and provide a chance to resolve them before a real collision of these relationships, fraught with harmful consequences” (Vasilyuk, 1995, p. , 94).

Conflicts perform a similar signaling function in interpersonal relationships. Let's return to the example of parents and child. If parents perceive the child’s disagreement, his new claims and attempts to discuss them with parents solely as disobedience, then they will fight his disobedience, insist on their own, and thereby most likely worsen, and perhaps even destroy, their relationship with the child. The most acute and painful conflicts with teenagers arise in those families where they have been in an atmosphere of suppression since childhood. The gradually accumulating tension is like steam, the pressure of which bursts a tightly closed boiler.

A constructive response would be to perceive what is happening not as disobedience, but as a signal of the need for change. Perhaps an analogy with pain would be appropriate here. Pain is unpleasant, but any doctor will tell you that it performs an important and useful function. Pain is a signal that something is wrong in the body. By ignoring or drowning out the pain with sedative pills, we remain with the disease. Conflict, like pain, serves as a signal, telling us that something is wrong in our relationships or in ourselves. And if we, in response to this signal, try to make changes in our interaction, we come to a new state of adaptation in the relationship. In the same way, an adequate reaction of parents will be to adapt their behavior, their requirements and expectations to the new level of the child’s development, his independence and autonomy. If we reach a new level of adaptation at each stage of our relationships, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationships.

S. Minukhin and Ch. Fishman describe the situation associated with the departure of adult children from the family, which they call the “empty nest period” and which

is often associated with depression in women: “However, in fact, the marital subsystem again becomes the most important family slave for both of its members, although with the appearance of grandchildren, new relationships have to be developed here too. This period, often described as a period of confusion, can instead become a period of rapid development if the couple, both as individuals and as a couple, draw on their experiences, dreams and expectations to realize opportunities previously unavailable due to the demands of parenthood. "(Minukhin, Fishman, 1998, pp. 32-33).

As an example, I will give the story of one young woman. She got married early, she was not yet nineteen years old. Her chosen one was several years older than her, and although he was also young, it seemed to her that he was wiser and more experienced. Perhaps this is what led to the fact that, despite her good relationship with him, she felt some kind of constraint in her soul, felt the distance separating them. After the birth of the child, their relationship began to deteriorate and finally approached that dangerous point, after which, perhaps, separation awaited them. However, there was that often unexpected breakthrough for which there is always hope. They began to sort out their relationship and during this frank conversation they understood each other. Having told this rather banal story, the woman added at the end: “I am so glad that this conflict was between us then. Because since then my husband and I have become absolutely close people to each other. I have no person closer to him, neither my mother, nor my child, no, he is my very close person. I can tell him anything and everything that’s on my soul.”

Conflict is an opportunity to relieve tension and “heal” relationships. The function of relieving tension, “improving” relationships, which the conflict potentially contains, can be purposefully used in pedagogical practice. For example, A. S. Makarenko considered conflict as a pedagogical means of influencing people’s relationships. He has an unfinished work “On the “explosion” (1949), in which he points out that in a team there is always a whole complex of various contradictions “ different degrees conflict." Choosing "from common circuit conflict relations the brightest, most prominent and convincing, understandable to everyone,” Makarenko recommends resolving it using the “explosion” method. “I call an explosion the bringing of a conflict to the final limit, to such a state when there is no longer any possibility for any evolution, for any litigation between the individual and society, when the question is posed bluntly - either to be a member of society or to leave it” (Makarenko, 1958, p. 508). This one after-

The daily limit can be expressed in various forms, but in all cases its main task is to break down incorrectly established relationships, in the place of which new relationships and new concepts are built. Makarenko showed great interest in the phenomenon of “explosion,” although he stipulated that “an explosive maneuver is a very painful and pedagogically difficult thing” (ibid., p. 510).

It is interesting that R. May considers it possible to use the same technique of intensifying experiences to initiate a beneficial crisis in psychotherapeutic practice. He writes about how he once received an extremely emotional letter from a young man who asked him for help: “In my response letter, I aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had become accustomed to his position as a spoiled child, who was always carried around, and now in his suffering there is nothing but self-pity and a complete lack of courage to cope with the current situation. I deliberately left no loophole to save the prestige of his “I”” (May, 1994, p. 99). May believes, judging by the response, that his goal has been achieved and has led to constructive steps.

F. Vasilyuk notes that the emotional experience of a crisis situation, no matter how strong it may be, does not in itself lead to overcoming it. In the same way, analyzing a situation and thinking about it only leads to a better understanding of it. The real problem lies in the creation of new meaning, in “meaning generation”, “meaning construction”, when the result of the individual’s internal work to overcome and live through critical life situations are changes in his internal subjective world - the acquisition of new meaning, a new value attitude, restoration of mental balance and etc. (Vasilyuk, 1984).

On the contrary, those strategies that, in essence, are psychologically ineffective, no matter how the individual himself evaluates them, actually turn out to be aimed at weakening, mitigating the severity of the crisis being experienced and the emotional states accompanying it. If we recall the previously used medical analogy, we can say that in the first case, a person, having felt pain, tries to find out its cause and cope with it by curing the disease, and in the second case, he simply takes pills, trying to drown out the unpleasant sensations.

The general practical position can be expressed in the words of May already quoted: “...Our task is transforming destructive conflicts into constructive ones” (May, 1994, p. 30).

samarapedsovet.ru