Interpersonal conflict. Causes of interpersonal conflicts

Seminar lesson 5 Topic: “Intrapersonal conflicts” Plan 1. Basic psychological concepts of intrapersonal conflict:? Z. Freud and his followers;? K. Levin;? A. Maslow;? V. Frank;? A. Leontyev.2. Definition and types of intrapersonal conflicts.3. Reasons and

Seminar lesson 7 Topic: “Family conflicts” Plan 1. The role of the family in the education and upbringing of children.2. Causes, typology and structure of family conflicts.3. Functions and consequences of conflict in the family.4. Basic ways to resolve family disputes

Seminar lesson 8 Topic: “Conflicts in the organization” Plan 1. Structure and functions of a modern organization.2. Classification of organizational conflicts.3. Prevention, resolution and management of conflicts in an organization. Literature (main)1. Antsupov A. Ya.

Seminar lesson 10 Topic: “Interethnic conflicts” Plan1. The concept of “ethnicity” in the sociological dimension.2. Sources of interethnic conflicts.3. War as one of the forms of interethnic conflict.4. The main ways to resolve interethnic conflicts

Seminar lesson 11 Topic: “Political conflicts” Plan 1. Concept and typology of political conflict.2. Political regime and socio-political contradictions in society.3. Problems of achievement social harmony in society. Literature (basic)1. Aniskevich A.S.

Conflicts between siblings It may take a child some time to understand that his little sister is not a doll to be squeezed tightly. You need to touch her gently and not hug her too tightly. It is the parents who must provide

Do not involve yourself in adult conflicts, do not break down. When children are present, relationships and actions of adults are not discussed; children are not criticized in the presence of other people or relatives. This is what the Yiddish mother thinks. Also, in front of children, they do not complain about others; they do not unite with the child against

Definition of Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict [from lat. conflictus - collision] - a collision of opposing goals, motives, points of view of interests of participants in the interaction [Myers, 12]. In essence, this is the interaction of people either pursuing mutually exclusive or simultaneously unattainable goals for both conflicting parties, or seeking to realize incompatible values ​​and norms in their relationships. In socio-psychological science, as a rule, such structural components interpersonal conflict, such as a conflict situation, conflict interaction, conflict resolution. The basis of any interpersonal conflict is the conflict situation that has developed even before it begins. Here we see both the participants in a possible future interpersonal clash and the subject of their disagreement. Many studies devoted to the problems of interpersonal conflict show that a conflict situation presupposes that its participants are focused on achieving individual rather than common goals. This determines the possibility of the emergence of 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 recognize, 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 his position, and the object itself, about which differences of opinion have arisen, may lose significance for one, or even both, parties. If the severity of the situation disappears in this way, the interpersonal conflict, which, it would seem, was inevitably bound to unfold, having lost its objective foundations, simply will not arise. For example, the basis of most conflict situations in which a teacher and a student are participants most often lies in the discrepancy, and sometimes the direct opposite, of their positions and views on learning and the rules of behavior at school.

Interpersonal conflict manifests itself in interactions between two or more individuals. In interpersonal conflicts, subjects confront each other and sort out their relationships 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 strives to defend its opinion, to prove the other wrong; people resort to mutual accusations, attacks on each other, verbal insults and humiliations, etc. This 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 situations of conflict, it becomes difficult to manage your emotions. Many of its participants experience negative well-being for a long time after the conflict is resolved.

Interpersonal conflict reveals a 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 she, 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. A complete resolution of the conflict will be achieved when the warring parties 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 this state will turn out to be temporary and the conflict will certainly manifest itself in some form under favorable circumstances.

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

Design functions include:

* cognitive (the emergence of a conflict acts as a symptom of dysfunctional relationships and the manifestation of emerging contradictions);

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

* instrumental (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 relationships;

* negative well-being of 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.

Structure of the conflict.

When studying conflicts systematically, their structure and elements are identified. The elements in an interpersonal conflict are: the subjects of the conflict, their personal characteristics, goals and motives, supporters, cause of conflict. The structure of a conflict is the relationship between its elements. Conflict is always evolving, so its elements and structure are constantly changing.

It can be noted that the most significant of the series unresolved problems In our opinion, we should include the difficulties associated with defining the concept of conflict and its correlation with other related concepts and phenomena of human mental life. The analysis of the understanding of conflict and the nature of this phenomenon in various areas of classical psychology has enriched our understanding of psychological conflicts, but did not remove the problem of defining the concept; moreover, it even complicated it. The authors of a general publication on the problems of constructive conflict management (Constructive Conflict Management... 1994) are forced to begin with the question of definition. They note that existing definitions Conflicts focus either on the incompatibility of actions (which, as we have seen, is characteristic of the situational approach) or on the perceived difference of interests or beliefs (which is characteristic of cognitive scientists). The definition of conflict, in their opinion, with which it is difficult to disagree, should include behavioral, cognitive, and affective components as present in and significant for any conflict. 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 conflict. The authors analyzed 52 definitions of conflicts belonging to domestic psychologists. Definitions of intrapersonal conflict are based on two key concepts: in some definitions, conflict is interpreted as a contradiction between different aspects of the personality, in others - as a clash, struggle of personal tendencies. A generalization of the definitions of interpersonal conflict made it possible to identify its following main properties: the presence of a contradiction between interests, values, goals, motives as the basis of the conflict; opposition from the subjects of the conflict; the desire to inflict maximum damage on the opponent and his interests by any means; negative emotions and feelings towards each other (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1992). Analysis of most specific definitions demonstrates either their vulnerability or narrowness that does not satisfy the existing types of psychological conflicts (at least its two main varieties - intrapersonal and interpersonal). And the first domestic “Psychotherapeutic Encyclopedia” (1998) does not at all 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 the preliminary identification of a number of features that we attempted in the introduction, which, based on various sources, were designated as invariant, that is, necessarily encountered in various interpretations of the conflict.

Let us recall that these included bipolarity as a confrontation between two principles; activity aimed at overcoming contradictions; the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of conflict. Let us consider whether these signs satisfy the psychological understanding of conflicts, taking into account the ideas of different psychological directions. 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, in the conflict there are two authorities opposing each other. Activity aimed at overcoming a contradiction is also characteristic of any conflict and is present in different designations, apparently, in all definitions of conflict (which is not surprising: remember that by its very origin the word “conflict” is a clash). This activity is called "collision", "incompatibility", "counteraction", etc.

It was precisely this characteristic of conflicts that was at one time the subject of

disputes between conflict experts who could not decide whether this sign is mandatory or whether the presence of negative feelings can already be considered a conflict. L. Coser 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 , on the contrary, there is always interaction" (Coser, 1986). At present, according to G. M. Andreeva, the debatable question of “whether conflict is only a form of psychological antagonism (i.e., the representation of a contradiction in consciousness) or whether it is necessarily the presence of conflict actions” can be considered resolved in favor of that “both evoked components are obligatory signs of conflict” (Andreeva, 1994).

Indeed, contradictions between people, disagreements that arise between them, no matter how significant they may be, will not necessarily take the form of a conflict. When does a 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 - 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 feature - activity aimed at overcoming a contradiction - obligatory for conflicts that develop not in interpersonal situations, but in the inner world of a person, at the intrapersonal level? Bipolarity itself does not mean a clash between the parties. There are many contradictions 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, etc. coexist in us. However, this does not mean that we are constantly Because of this, he is 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 initially designated by us as the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of the conflict. Its isolation was determined by the need to limit our proposed understanding of the conflict from its metaphorical use. The simplest interpretation of this attribute means that conflict is a “human” phenomenon. Psychologists do not need this clarification (the exception is attributing 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 places emphasis on his endowment with consciousness and will (in the traditional philosophical and psychological understanding), on his ability to take active and conscious actions.

We noted activity above as one of the attributive signs of conflict. It develops as a consequence of the awareness of the presence of a contradiction and the need to overcome it. If a person does not perceive the existing contradiction (in his own aspirations, in relationships with other people, etc.) as a problem that requires a solution, then psychologically the conflict does not exist. This, 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., one way or another, generate 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 something that is happening in his soul, he will experience it as a problem that requires its own solutions.

At first glance, the exception is the psychoanalytic interpretation of conflict as a phenomenon unconscious to a person (pathogenic, according to Freud, and neurotic, according to Horney). However we're talking about 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 repressing and suppressing them, and their resolution presupposes their awareness.

We examined those signs of conflict that were originally identified to characterize this phenomenon and which, in our opinion, are quite consistent with both psychological phenomenology and the ideas existing in theoretical psychology. Is there some unmarked feature left beyond the scope of our consideration? Turning to the definitions of conflict by other authors shows that the attributive features we propose are consistent 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. We are talking about negative actions or negative feelings - characteristics that are often included in definitions of conflict. Let us consider as an example the two definitions already given. One of them is the classic and perhaps the most widespread definition of L. Coser, 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 what they want, 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 conflict (“causing damage or eliminating an opponent”). The second definition belongs to the domestic authors Antsupov and Shipilov, who performed enormous 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 publication, they clarify their definition: conflict is “the most destructive way of development and completion of 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 during the conflict there is opposition between subjects, but they do not experience mutual negative emotions, or, on the contrary, while experiencing such, they do not oppose each other, then the authors consider such situations to be pre-conflict. And by intrapersonal conflict we mean " negative experience, caused by the protracted struggle of the structures of the inner world of the individual" (Antsupov, Shipilov, 2006, p. 158). We are talking about a fundamental issue - inclusion in the concept of conflict as its obligatory sign of negative actions (as in Coser) or negative feelings (as in Antsupov and Shipilov). 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 last. Let us recall that the early philosophical and sociological tradition, as well as the psychological one (psychoanalysis), was characterized by an emphasis on. 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 the conflict as a negative phenomenon.

There is no doubt that conflict is accompanied by a variety of experiences: one can experience a feeling of annoyance, experience difficulties that have arisen, a feeling of incomprehension, injustice, etc. However, does it necessarily involve hostility towards the partner or a desire to cause harm to him?

The authors of a publication devoted to constructive conflict management (Constructive Conflict Management... 1994) believe that this concept is characterized by a broader scope than the concept of aggression, and that conflict can proceed without aggression. The latter can be a way for parties to the conflict to influence each other and can lead to its destructive development, but in modern interpretation the conflict can develop without mutual hostility of the participants or their destructive actions. This is precisely what 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 relevant to conflicts of both types. Among the various feelings experienced by a person in a situation of existential or any other internal conflict, it is hardly legitimate 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 conflict leads to a narrowing of the scope of the concept and thereby reduces general concept conflict to one of the possible varieties.

So, in the socio-psychological literature there is no generally accepted definition of interpersonal conflict. The main difficulty here is to distinguish conflictual relationships from all possible types of relationships. What can be considered a conflict and what cannot? Where is the line that determines the beginning of a conflict? In attempts to give such a definition, it has become traditional in Western psychology to resort to the terms “clash,” “struggle,” and “confrontation.” Thus, one of the first definitions belongs to the American scientist L. Coser, according to which interpersonal conflict is “a struggle that arises due to a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy values ​​and claims, and involves the neutralization, infringement or destruction of the goals of rivals.” .

A slightly different definition was given by another American researcher J. Drever: conflict is “a clash between incompatible impulses or desires, usually producing emotional stress...”.

In the above quotes, two different approaches to the phenomenon are clearly visible.

In the first case, attention is focused on the rational aspects of people’s behavior and, thus, the subject is assumed to have complete control over the situation.

In the second case, some psychoanalytic orientation of the author is noticeable: the emphasis is on emotional aspects, spontaneity, uncontrollability.

These two directions of conflict analysis in Western social psychology continue to this day, and the first is predominant.

The awakening of interest in the problem of interpersonal conflicts, as an independent object of research, dates back to the 60s of our century, that is, to the time when the study of small groups became one of the central trends in Western social psychology. Naturally, when analyzing various psychological processes(and the processes, as it turned out, were closely interrelated) in micro groups of people, it was impossible to avoid this problem. Another reason for the increased interest in it in the West and primarily in the United States was the first attempts made in the same years to develop the so-called general theory of conflict. As a result, many theoretical and experimental studies appeared, based on abstract-logical and even purely mathematical modeling various kinds situations of competition, rivalry, etc.

In empirical terms, such research, of course, could not be carried out otherwise than in a laboratory experiment, since only in this case the researcher can fully control the situation.

Indeed, much of the work on conflict studies in the West has been carried out in laboratory conditions. In this case, the following issues were mainly considered: the behavior and tactics of people in conflict situations; factors influencing the choice of one course of action or another; methods and ways out of the situation.

A slightly different range of issues is addressed by Western social psychologists who focus on field research. The most typical areas of interest in this direction are the causes of conflicts, conflict factors, ways and means of resolving and preventing conflicts.

It should be noted that here, too, there is a noticeable (and natural) influence of the general methodological guidelines characteristic of neopositivism. In particular, in most classifications of the causes of conflicts in organizations, two large groups of causes are distinguished: business and personal conflicts, or, in other terms, independent and emotional.

The sources of personal or emotional conflicts are seen by many authors exclusively in the psychological properties initially inherent in the interacting parties, or rather, in the mutual combination of these properties. Indicative in this regard is the work of R. Hill, who approaches the study of interpersonal conflicts from the perspective of the concept developed by W. Schutz for the study of interpersonal relationships. In accordance with it, the nature of the relationship between two individuals and the potential conflict between them are determined by the mutual expression of their three needs (for friendship, for power - subordination, for inclusion in each other’s activities). All other possible factors are simply ignored here.

There are also slightly different approaches to grouping the causes of conflicts. A number of authors classify them based on their sources of occurrence. S. Robbins highlights, for example, conflicts associated with the communication process, with the structure of the organization, and with human behavior.

F. Garrison's theory has conflicts caused by competition due to limited resources or remuneration, divergence of goals and interests, and the desire for independence (power). In general, foreign studies of interpersonal conflicts are numerous and, in addition to applied research, there are many works that claim to be more high level generalizations.

However, due to differences in methodology, their results are not always comparable with the conclusions obtained by domestic scientists.

One of the first definitions of interpersonal conflict from the perspective of those close to Russian psychology was given by the famous Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski, who understood it as “a clash caused by a contradiction in attitudes, goals and methods of action in relation to a specific object or situation.”

A.A. Ershov, long time who dealt with this problem, writes that “interpersonal conflict means a clash of personalities due to the incompatibility of needs, motives, goals, attitudes, views, behavior in the process and as a result of communication between these individuals.” A similar definition is given by the authors of the textbook “The Work of a Leader”: “Conflicts in work teams are contradictions between employees due to the incompatibility of their needs, motives and goals of activity, relationships and views, psychological make-up, etc.”

They also talk about contradictions and incompatibility of interests, aspirations, points of view, etc., as sources of conflict.

Despite a number of obvious advantages of these definitions, the following fact attracts attention: the most diverse types of contradictions between people are called sources of conflict. The question arises: is this really the case, can the conflict really be based on any kind of contradiction? This question is far from idle; understanding the very essence of the phenomenon largely depends on the answer to it. Therefore, there is a need to at least briefly analyze some types of contradictions from the point of view of their potential for conflict.

Contradiction or incompatibility of needs is usually associated with the impossibility of their simultaneous satisfaction. In such situations, conflict is, of course, possible, but it is by no means inevitable. They often end completely painlessly, if the actions of the parties do not reveal tendencies that contradict their values ​​and norms.

Examples include numerous cases of conflict-free interaction between people in extreme situations with limited opportunities to meet their vital needs. It would seem that there are obvious contradictions of needs, but at the interpersonal level there is often no conflict, although it is possible that individuals experience very acute internal conflicts associated with the struggle of different motives and values.

Contradictions in goals and interests are constantly present in sports and various types of games (especially clearly in chess). Moreover, the very existence of sports and games for winning is unthinkable without such a contradiction, which is one of their main conditions. However, in itself it does not lead to conflicts as such, at least until one of the participants violates the rules of the game (competition) or norms of behavior. Such situations very often arise in everyday interaction between people and, in most cases, proceed without conflict.

These, in particular, include scientific discussions (and just discussions), disputes when discussing certain issues at production meetings, etc.

The relative lack of conflict in such situations is due to the fact that contradictions of needs, goals, interests, views, etc., are not perceived in many cases as personal contradictions, unless, we repeat, actions are taken that expose contradictions of values, attitudes, motives, norms .

Here we must express our disagreement with those researchers who identify conflict with competition and rivalry. As was shown earlier, such an identification is typical of Western social psychology, but is often found in Russian literature. This is refuted by the fact that rival, competing parties often maintain friendly and even close relations with each other. Especially vivid examples The history of sports preserves such relationships.

Based on the above, in our opinion, it would be correct to describe situations arising as a result of contradictions of needs, goals, interests, views, points of view, if there are no contradictions of values, motives, norms, using the terms “struggle”, “confrontation”.

The use of these terms in these cases seems to us more appropriate, since, as already noted, the contradictions here are not of a personal nature, they do not lead to a negative perception and attitude towards the opponent’s personality in general.

The latter is characteristic of the conflict. In essence, this meaning is already contained in the concept itself, since we are talking not just about a conflict, but about an interpersonal conflict. Thus, the basis of interpersonal conflict is always the incompatibility (contradiction) of people’s attitudes, value orientations, and motives, which is manifested in the discrepancy between the actions of one person and the expectations of another.

Here we should make a reservation about the content of the concept “expectation”. The fact is that a subject may, in certain situations, be prepared for undesirable actions of an interaction partner that are incompatible with his attitudes and value orientations. It seemed that under such circumstances there would be no violation of expectations. But such expectations are a consequence logical analysis psychology of the partner, they are secondary formations. Therefore, we understand this psychological phenomenon as mutual demands of people for each other’s actions, based on their assimilation of certain social and group norms.

These norms can be official and informal, relating to any area of ​​human interaction ( labor relations, communication, order of satisfying non-productive needs, etc.).

Their carriers are legal norms and instructions, administrative decisions and requirements, public opinion etc.

Social and group norms regulate the activities of people in a team, their interaction with each other; they are the objective criteria on the basis of which the activities and behavior of each person are assessed and the attitude of others towards him is formed.

Thus, the root cause of any conflict in the psychological sense is the commission by at least one of the interacting parties of actions that violate the expectations of the other and the emergence as a result of this contradiction of motives, value orientations, and norms. It can be assumed that in developed work collectives with an established system of norms, conflicts are a consequence of violations of these norms. The action itself, as such, can be called the reason for the beginning of the conflict, and the revealed contradiction is its cause. Some other researchers also talk about violation of norms and expectations as sources of conflict. In particular, in the classifications of V.N. Shalenko and N.V. Grishina calls this group of reasons. According to V.N. Shalenko conflicts are caused by:

• 1) a sharp divergence of individual and public interests;
• 2) inconsistency of the methods of carrying out actions with accepted standards;
• 3) sharp differences of views;
• 4) discrepancies in assessments between individuals.

We think the most successful group is N.V. Grishina, who, based on specific research, identified conflicts that arise as a result of:

• 1) obstacles to achieving the main goals of joint work;
• 2) obstacles to achieving personal goals in joint work activities;
• 3) contradictions between actions and accepted norms;
• 4) personal incompatibility.

However, this classification is not without, in our opinion, some shortcomings, the main one of which is the lack of a single basis, as a result of which the same reason can be classified into different groups. For example, actions that violate norms may simultaneously interfere with the achievement of basic or personal goals of joint activity. A thorough analysis of the views of these, as well as a number of other authors, indicates the possibility of reducing all the sources and preconditions for conflicts mentioned by them to one root cause - violations of norms and expectations. It follows that one of the most important grounds for classifying the causes of interpersonal conflicts in a team should be the types of norms regulating the joint activities and communication of team members.

In Russian social psychology there are various classifications of norms, but our task is not to analyze them.

We are more interested in the reasons that cause conflicts in work collectives. Based on all that has been said above, interpersonal conflict in this work will be understood as a manifestation of situational incompatibility of motives, value orientations, and norms of subjects, accompanied by an emotionally negative perception of each other, caused by the commission of at least one of them actions that sharply do not correspond to the expectations of the other. If we have conflicts occurring in work collectives, then there is a wide range of objective reasons that cause conflict situations.

The most significant of them are:

• 1) poor work organization;
• 2) low wages;
• 3) poor provision of the labor process with materials, equipment, tools, etc.;
• 4) the existing system of distribution of social statuses and roles in the organization infringes on the interests, claims, and sometimes even the dignity of individual employees or their groups;
• 5) situational incompatibility of two or more individuals that develops in a team, manifested in the discrepancy between the actions of one and the expectations of the other (others);
• 6) low cohesion of employees in the team;
• 7) lack of objective criteria for evaluating work.

This network of objective determinants that determine the emergence of conflicts is most often superimposed by the action of a number of subjective factors rooted in the socio-psychological characteristics of individuals and their interpersonal interaction. Among them, the most significant influence on the emergence of interpersonal conflicts most often has:

• 1) violations of management principles, manifested in incorrect actions of managers (violations of labor legislation, unfair use of rewards and punishments, inept use of human resources, destructive impact on the social status and roles of subordinate employees, insufficient consideration of psychological characteristics, personal interests and needs of employees;
• 2) incorrect actions of subordinates (dishonest attitude towards work, personal disorganization, selfish aspirations;
• 3) psychological incompatibility workers, the collision of their goals, attitudes, interests, motives, needs, behavior in the process and result of their communication and interaction in the work collective;
• 4) the presence in the team of so-called “difficult people” - “aggressors”, “complainers”, “bores”, etc., who by their behavior in the immediate social environment create a situation of social tension, leading to the emergence of interpersonal conflicts;
• 5) the emergence in the interpersonal interactions of team workers of such contradictions in which some individuals, with their words, judgments, and actions, affect or infringe upon social status others, their material or spiritual interests, moral dignity, prestige;
• 6) manipulation, i.e., hidden control of the interlocutor, partner against his will, in which the manipulator receives a unilateral advantage at the expense of the victim;
• 7) discrepancy between the words, assessments, and actions of some team members and the expectations and requirements of other team members.

E.V. Grishina showed the influence of personal characteristics of workers on conflict. In particular, she considered such a factor as the personal significance of a particular situation. She also obtained data on the influence of some of her socio-demographic characteristics, for example, gender and age, on a person’s conflict potential.

Very interesting, in our opinion, is the analysis of the relationship between the degree of conflict and the level of development of the team. An attempt at such an analysis was made by A.I. Dontsov and T.A. Polozova. They drew conclusions about a decrease in the frequency of conflicts with an increase in the level of development of the team. It seems, however, that we cannot speak here of the presence of direct dependencies in all cases. A lot depends on what is meant by level of development and how it is defined.

Interpersonal conflict[from lat. conflictus - collision] - a collision of opposing goals, motives, points of view of interests of participants in the interaction. In essence, this is the interaction of people either pursuing mutually exclusive or simultaneously unattainable goals for both conflicting parties, or seeking 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, and conflict resolution are considered. The basis of any interpersonal conflict is the conflict situation that has developed even before it begins. Here we see both the participants in a possible future interpersonal clash and the subject of their disagreement. Many studies devoted to the problems of interpersonal conflict show that a conflict situation presupposes that its participants are focused on achieving individual rather than common goals. This determines the possibility of the emergence of 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 recognize, on the one hand, the current situation as generally meeting their individual goals, and on the other, these goals as incompatible and mutually exclusive. But until this happens, one of the potential opponents may change his position, and the object itself, about which differences of opinion have arisen, may lose significance for one, or even both, parties. If the severity of the situation disappears in this way, the interpersonal conflict, which, it would seem, was inevitably bound to unfold, having lost its objective foundations, simply will not arise. For example, the basis of most conflict situations in which a teacher and a student are participants most often lies in the discrepancy, and sometimes the direct opposite, of their positions and views on learning and the rules of behavior at school.

Lack of discipline, laxity, a careless, frivolous attitude towards the study of one or another student and excessive authoritarianism and intolerance of the teacher are frequent causes of acute interpersonal clashes. But a timely, targeted educational intervention carried out by a teacher to reorient the student, and in some cases, a revision of his own wrong position, can eliminate a conflict situation and prevent it from developing into an open interpersonal conflict, and sometimes a protracted confrontation. Conflict interaction in social psychology is traditionally understood as the implementation by participants in a conflict situation of their opposing positions, their actions aimed at achieving their goals and inhibiting the solution of the enemy’s problems. As observation and special studies show, the attitudes towards interpersonal conflicts, for example, of teachers and their behavior in situations of conflict interaction are ambiguous. As a rule, teachers who implement an authoritarian leadership style and adhere to dictatorship and guardianship tactics in relationships with students are intolerant of any conflict situation, and especially of interpersonal clashes, regarding it as a direct threat to their authority and prestige. In this case, any conflict situation in which such a teacher finds himself a participant moves to the stage of an open conflict, during which he tries to “solve” educational problems. The most constructive is a differentiated approach to interpersonal conflicts, assessing them from the point of view of the causes that led to them, the nature of the consequences, the functions they perform, the forms of their occurrence, and the possibilities of their resolution. Traditionally, conflicts are distinguished by their content, significance, form of expression, type of relationship structure, and social formalization. Interpersonal conflict in its content can be both business and personal. Experimental studies show that the frequency and nature of conflicts depend on the level of socio-psychological development of the community: the higher it is, the less often conflict situations arise in the group, which are based on the individualistic tendencies of its members.

The business conflicts that arise here are predominantly generated, as a rule, by objective business-related contradictions in joint activities and have a constructive orientation, performing the positive function of determining the optimal ways to achieve a group goal. The business nature of such an interpersonal conflict in no way excludes the emotional intensity, clearly expressed and clearly demonstrated by each of its participants in their personal attitude towards the object of disagreement. Moreover, it is personal interest in the success of the case that does not allow the conflicting parties to descend to settling scores, to attempts to assert themselves by humiliating the other. Unlike a personal conflict, which often does not lose its intensity even when its initial grounds have already been exhausted, the degree of emotional intensity of a business conflict is determined by the attitude of both parties to the content and goals of the joint activity. After a constructive solution to the issue that gave rise to the conflict is found, most often the relationship is normalized. Continuing with the example from the field of educational practice, it should be said that almost any conflict between a teacher and a student is significant not only for its two direct participants, but also for the entire teaching staff as a whole. Despite the fact that quite often an interpersonal conflict is perceived as a “combat”, the social community to which the parties belong and are oriented is always, albeit sometimes invisibly, present during their collision, largely determining the course of its development. The nature and characteristics of the course of conflict interaction between a teacher and a student are largely determined by the specifics of the intra-group structure of the teaching and educational team, and the presence of power that the teacher has. From the point of view of social formalization, such conflicts, the so-called “vertical” conflicts, in their overwhelming majority should be classified as “official”, especially if in the form of expression they represent an open, demonstrative clash.

But even in the case of a hidden, “masked” conflict, one can only conditionally speak of its unofficial nature. A necessary condition for a teacher to effectively influence a conflict that has arisen between him and a student for one reason or another is his thorough analysis of the causes, motives that led to the situation, goals, and probable outcomes of the conflict in which he found himself a participant. The ability of a teacher (like any other leader) to take a fairly objective position is a serious indicator of his high professional qualifications and skill. As research has shown, it is impossible to formulate any universal principle for resolving interpersonal conflicts that are diverse in their focus and nature, or to indicate the only correct tactics of behavior in all cases. Only when a leader is fluent in various tactics for resolving interpersonal conflict, taking into account numerous aspects of this socio-psychological phenomenon, and skillfully applies them in each specific case, can one count on the desired result. In addition to interpersonal conflict, there are also dissonance (intrapersonal conflict caused by an individual’s attempt to realize two or more opposing, mutually exclusive motives), intergroup conflict and conflict between an individual and a group. And yet, in terms of research within the framework of socio-psychological science, the study of issues related to interpersonal conflicts is a priority. The most detailed methodologically developed area is the study of the prevailing strategy of behavior in conflict interpersonal interaction (R. Blake, J. Mouton, K. Thomas, etc.).

The majority of both interpersonal and other social conflicts are based on a widespread stereotype, according to which any situation of conflict of interests represents a so-called zero-sum game in which the size of the gain is equal to the size of the loss. That is, one’s own interests can be satisfied only to the extent that the interests of the opposite party are infringed. The most obvious example of this kind is sports games where the winners win exactly the same score as the losers.

However, in real life Often there are situations that are non-zero-sum games, in which the total gain does not necessarily equal the total loss. A classic illustration of this paradox is the “prisoner’s dilemma,” widely known in social psychology. In the original version, this is a story about two suspects of a serious crime, who are interrogated one by one by a prosecutor. At the same time, “they are both guilty, however, the prosecutor only has evidence of their guilt in lesser crimes. Therefore, he invites each of the criminals to confess separately: if one confesses and the other does not, the prosecutor guarantees immunity to the confessed person (and uses his confession to accuse another in more serious crime). If both confess, each will receive a moderate sentence. If neither confesses, the punishment for both will be insignificant." Thus, when using an optimal strategy that takes into account the interests of the other, both prisoners benefit - they receive a symbolic punishment. Meanwhile, in practice, as D. Myers notes, "to minimize their own sentence, many confess, despite the fact that joint confession leads to more severe sentences than mutual non-recognition, since they are guided by the logic according to which “-...regardless of what the other prisoner decides, it will be better for each of them confess. If the other confesses, the first prisoner, having confessed, will also receive a moderate sentence, and not the maximum. If the other does not confess, the first one will be able to go free. Of course, each of the two reasons the same way. And both fall into a social trap."

It can be noted that in this particular situation, such a line of behavior is justified and is conditioned, firstly, by the extremely high personal significance of the outcome for each of the participants and, secondly, by the physical impossibility of agreeing and concluding an agreement on joint actions. However, even in much less responsible and emotionally “charged” situations, people become victims of the “zero sum” stereotype. According to D. Myers, "in approximately 2000 studies, university students encountered various options“Prisoner’s dilemmas,” where the price of the game was not the prison term, but chips, money, chips. Moreover, for each pre-selected strategy of the second player, it is more profitable for the first player to isolate himself (since in doing so he exploits the willingness to cooperate of the second player or protects himself from exploitation on his part). However, that’s the rub: without cooperating, both parties receive much less than if they trusted each other and benefited each other. This dilemma drives the participants into a psychological trap when both realize that they could mutually benefit - but, not trusting each other, they “get fixated” on refusing to cooperate.

Confirmation of the last thesis was obtained in a number of experiments conducted by domestic social psychologists. A group of students, divided into two teams of equal size, were asked to play a very simple game. Teams located at different sides the dividing line drawn on the floor was given next instruction: "Your team receives one winning point for each player of the opposing team who crosses the dividing line and ends up on the side of the hall where you are now. You can use any means to encourage them to do this, except physical force." It is not too difficult to guess that the optimal winning strategy in this situation for both teams is to simply exchange sides, as a result of which both teams receive the maximum possible win. Note that, according to the conditions of the game, the participants had almost unlimited opportunities to agree on interaction both with the opposing team and within their own team. Despite this, in numerous trials, participants, as a rule, began with attempts to persuade, bribe, and blackmail members of the opposing team, i.e. played a zero-sum game. When the idea of ​​possible cooperation with rivals arose, it invariably ran into fierce resistance from individual participants and in many cases remained unrealized. If the parties did come to an agreement, they implemented it through a scrupulously synchronized “one-on-one exchange” of players, thereby demonstrating a clear distrust of each other.

Such rigidity in the perception of conflict situations, inherent in many people, is due to their total fixation on their own position and inability to look at the situation through the eyes of another. In this regard, the most important practical task of a social psychologist when working with both obvious and brewing interpersonal conflict is to minimize by means of socio-psychological influence the influence on the perception of the situation and the opponent of such factors as personal projections of participants, prejudice in favor of themselves, and a tendency to self-justification , fundamental attribution error, negative stereotypes. Thus, the situation is freed from the truly destructive components of the conflict, since, from the point of view of modern social psychology, “many conflicts contain only a small core of truly incompatible goals - main the problem is a distorted perception of other people's motives and goals." - Objective contradictions, conditioned by real circumstances, are not only not destructive in themselves, but on the contrary, they often contain the potential for development. In any case, a clear understanding of the essence of the contradictions, free from layers of transference and countertransferences characteristic of the destructive development of a conflict situation allows one to outline a plan of action and choose a behavioral strategy that is most adequate to real circumstances.

K. Thomas, based on a detailed analysis of the “prisoner’s dilemma,” identified five behavioral strategies based on the relationship between taking into account one’s own interests and the interests of the opponent, potentially possible in a conflict situation:

1. Win - Lose. Within the framework of this strategy, one’s own interests are absolutized, and the interests of the opposite side are completely ignored. In relation to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” a full-scale strategy of this kind would mean that the suspect not only agrees to cooperate with the prosecutor, confessing to the crime, but purposefully “pawns” his “accomplice,” while simultaneously trying to minimize his own guilt.

2. Loss - Win. At the same time, one’s own interests are ignored and the interests of others are absolutized. In the example under consideration, guided by this strategy, the suspect takes all the blame upon himself, thereby shielding his comrade.

3. Losing - Losing. Choosing this strategy means ignoring both your own interests and the interests of the other party. In this case, the suspect tells the prosecutor about a serious crime committed by himself and another suspect, which will obviously result in severe punishment for both.

4. Compromise. Partial consideration of both one's own interests and the interests of the other - mutual recognition of a less serious crime with the prospect of a moderate sentence for both.

All four of these strategies are zero-sum games. In contrast, the fifth Win-Win strategy is a non-zero-sum game in which both one's own interests and the interests of the other are valued equally highly. In relation to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” it means that both suspects do not confess and get off with “a slight fright.”

If we abstract from the “prisoner’s dilemma” and consider situations of conflict of interests in which the parties interact with each other, it is important to note that the search for an optimal solution in the “win-win” logic is most facilitated by confrontation, which at the level of ordinary consciousness often confused with aggression and tended to be avoided. In fact, confrontation is not a consequence of aggressive, but of assertive behavior of the parties, which meets four basic principles, which include:

&bull- -direct, clear and unambiguous statement of one’s own position-

&bull- -acceptance of the opponent’s position, in the sense of unconditional recognition of its right to exist (which in no way means automatic agreement with it) -

&bull- -refusal of any compromises for the sake of maintaining relationships-

- readiness to improve one’s own position by accepting the opponent’s arguments.

In this regard, the development of assertive behavior and confrontation skills is another essential aspect of the work of a practical social psychologist in the context of the problem of interpersonal conflicts.

A practical social psychologist, within the framework of his professional activities, can and should use business constructive conflict interaction as a correctional and educational resource and should, to the best of his ability, prevent the emergence of personal destructive conflict clashes among members of the group or organization that interests him.