In the most general form, the subjective causes of any organizational conflicts associated with people, their consciousness and behavior, as a rule, are caused by three factors:
- interdependence and incompatibility of the parties’ goals;
- awareness of this;
- the desire of each side to realize its goals at the expense of the opponent.
1. Resource distribution. In almost any organization, resources are always limited, so the task of management is the rational distribution of materials, people and money between various departments and groups. Since people tend to strive to maximize resources and overestimate the importance of their work, the distribution of resources almost inevitably leads to various kinds of conflicts.
2. Task interdependence. The possibility of conflict exists wherever one person (group) depends on another person (group) to perform its functions. Due to the fact that any organization is a system consisting of a number of interdependent elements - departments or people, if one of them is not performing adequately, as well as if there is insufficient coordination of their activities, the interdependence of tasks can become a cause of conflict.
3. Differences in goals. The possibility of conflict increases with the complexity of organizations, their further structural division and associated autonomy. As a result, individual specialized units (groups) begin to largely independently formulate their goals, which may diverge significantly from the goals of the entire organization. In the practical implementation of autonomous (group) goals, this leads to conflicts.
4. Differences in ideas and values. Different ideas, interests and desires of people influence their assessment of the situation, leading to a biased perception of it and an appropriate reaction to it. This gives rise to contradictions and conflicts.
5. Differences in behavior and life experiences. Differences in life experience, education, length of service, age, value orientations, social characteristics and even just habits hinder mutual understanding and cooperation between people and increase the possibility of conflict.
6. Poor communications. Lack, distortion, and sometimes excess of information can serve as a cause, consequence and catalyst for conflict. In the latter case, poor communications intensify the conflict, preventing its participants from understanding each other and the situation as a whole.
This classification of the causes of conflict can be used in its practical diagnosis, but in general it is quite abstract. A more specific classification of the causes of the conflict is proposed by R. Dahrendorf. Using and supplementing it, we can distinguish the following types of causes of social conflicts:
1. Personal reasons (“personal friction”). These include individual traits, likes and dislikes, psychological and ideological incompatibility, differences in education and life experience, etc.
2. Structural reasons. They manifest themselves in imperfection:
- communication structure: absence, distortion or contradictory information, weak contacts between management and ordinary employees, distrust and inconsistency of actions between them due to imperfections or breakdowns in communications, etc.;
- role structure: inconsistency job descriptions, various formal requirements for the employee, official requirements and personal goals, etc.;
- technical structure: unequal equipment of different departments with equipment, exhausting pace of work, etc.;
- organizational structure: the disproportionality of various departments that disrupts the general rhythm of work, the duplication of their activities, the lack of effective control and responsibility, the conflicting aspirations of formal and informal groups in an organization, etc.;
- power structures: disproportionality of rights and duties, competencies and responsibilities, as well as the distribution of power in general, including formal and informal leadership and the struggle for it.
4. Conditions and nature of work. Unhealthy or hazardous working conditions, unhealthy ecological environment, poor relationships in the team and with management, dissatisfaction with the content of work, etc. — all this also creates fertile ground for conflicts to arise.
5. Distribution relations. Remuneration in the form of wages, bonuses, rewards, social privileges, etc. not only serves as a means of satisfying the various needs of people, but is also perceived as an indicator of social prestige and recognition from management. The cause of the conflict may be not so much the absolute amount of payment as the distribution relations in the team, assessed by employees from the point of view of their fairness.
6. Differences in identification. They manifest themselves in the tendency of employees to identify themselves mainly with their group (unit) and exaggerate their importance and merits, while underestimating the importance of others and forgetting about the overall goals of the organization. This kind of inclination is based on the intensity and emotional coloring of communications in primary groups, the relatively high personal significance of such groups and the issues resolved in them, group interests and group egoism. Reasons of this type often determine conflicts between various departments, as well as between individual teams and the center, the leadership of the organization.
7. The organization’s desire to expand and increase its significance. This trend is reflected famous law Parkinson, according to which every organization strives to expand its staff, resources and influence, regardless of the volume of work performed. The trend towards expansion is based on the interest of each department, and above all actual and potential managers, in obtaining new, including higher and more prestigious positions, resources, power, and authority. On the way to realizing the expansion trend, there are usually similar or restraining positions of other departments and management (center), which tries to limit aspirations and retain power, control functions and resources of the organization primarily within itself. As a result of this kind of relationship, conflicts arise.
8. Difference in starting positions. This may be a different level of education, qualifications and values of personnel, and unequal working conditions and material and technical equipment, etc. various departments. Such reasons lead to misunderstanding, ambiguous perception of tasks and responsibilities, uncoordinated activities of interdependent departments and, ultimately, to conflicts.
The last three reasons characterize mainly interorganizational conflicts. IN real life Conflicts are often generated not by one, but by several reasons, each of which in turn changes depending on the specific situation. However, this does not eliminate the need to know the causes and sources of conflicts in order to use and manage them constructively.
The causes of conflicts largely determine the nature of their consequences.
Negative consequences of conflict
There are two directions for assessing the consequences of conflicts: functionalist(integration) and sociological(dialectical). The first of them, which is represented, for example, by the famous American experimental scientist E. Mayo. He views conflict as a dysfunctional phenomenon that disrupts the normal existence of an organization and reduces the effectiveness of its activities. The functionalist direction focuses on the negative consequences of conflict. Summarizing the work of various representatives of this direction, we can highlight the following: negative consequences of conflicts:
- destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, decreased controllability;
- distracting staff from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
- dissatisfaction of conflict participants with their stay in the organization, increased frustration, depression, stress, etc. and, as a consequence, a decrease in labor productivity, an increase in staff turnover;
- increasing emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of management and others;
- weakening of communication and cooperation opportunities with opponents in the future;
- distracting conflict participants from solving the organization’s problems and a fruitless waste of their strength, energy, resources and time fighting each other.
In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) consider them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results for the organization:
- initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization there are always certain people, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
- articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the pressing problem more clearly and creates favorable conditions for solving it;
- mobilization of attention, interest and resources to solve problems and, as a result, saving the organization’s working time and resources. Very often, pressing issues, especially those that concern the entire organization, are not resolved until a conflict arises, since in conflict-free, “normal” functioning, out of respect for organizational norms and traditions, as well as out of a sense of politeness, managers and employees often bypass thorny issues;
- creating a sense of belonging among the conflict participants to the decision made as a result, which facilitates its implementation;
- stimulating more thoughtful and informed action in order to prove that you are right;
- encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions, eliminating the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other’s interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
- developing the ability of conflict participants to cooperate in the future, when the conflict is resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Fair competition that leads to consensus increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
- release of psychological tension in relations between people, a clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
- overcoming traditions of groupthink, conformism, “submissiveness syndrome” and the development of free-thinking, individuality of the employee. As a result, the staff's ability to develop increases original ideas, finding optimal ways to solve organizational problems;
- involving the usually passive part of employees in solving organizational problems. This contributes personal development employees and serves to achieve the goals of the organization;
- identification of informal groups and their leaders and smaller groups, which can be used by the manager to improve management efficiency;
- development of skills and abilities among conflict participants relatively painless solution to future problems;
- strengthening group cohesion in case of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, most easy way unifying the group and muffling or even overcoming internal discord is finding a common enemy, a competitor. External conflict is capable of extinguishing internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose relevance, severity and are forgotten.
Based on an assessment of the consequences of conflicts, a strategy for dealing with them in the organization is built.
The question of the essence of the conflict causes a lot of disagreement. Here are the opinions of several modern Russian scientists.
A. G. Zdravomyslov. “This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is determined by opposing values and norms, interests and needs.”
E. M. Babosov. “A social conflict is an extreme case of social contradictions, expressed in diverse forms of struggle between individuals and various social communities, aimed at achieving economic, social, political, spiritual interests and goals, neutralizing or eliminating an imaginary rival and not allowing him to achieve the realization of his interests.”
Yu. G. Zaprudsky. “Social conflict is an explicit or hidden state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and development trends of social subjects... special shape historical movement towards a new social unity."
What unites these opinions?
As a rule, one side has certain material and intangible (primarily power, prestige, authority, information, etc.) values, while the other is either completely deprived of them or has insufficient values. It is not excluded that the dominance may be imaginary, existing only in the imagination of one of the parties. But if any of the partners feels disadvantaged in possessing any of the above, then a conflict state arises.
We can say that social conflict is a special interaction between individuals, groups and associations when their incompatible views, positions and interests collide; confrontation social groups regarding the diverse life support resources.
Two points of view are expressed in the literature: one is about the harm of social conflict, the other is about its benefits. Essentially, we are talking about the positive and negative functions of conflicts. Social conflicts can lead to both disintegrative and integrative consequences. The first of these consequences increases bitterness, destroys normal partnerships, and distracts people from solving pressing problems. The latter help solve problems, find a way out of the current situation, strengthen the cohesion of people, and allow them to more clearly understand their interests. It is almost impossible to avoid conflict situations, but it is quite possible to ensure that they are resolved in a civilized manner.
There are many different social conflicts going on in society. They differ in their scale, type, composition of participants, causes, goals and consequences. The problem of typology arises in all sciences that deal with many heterogeneous objects. The simplest and most easily explained typology is based on identifying areas of manifestation of conflict. According to this criterion, economic, political, interethnic, everyday, cultural and social (in the narrow sense) conflicts are distinguished. Let us explain that the latter include conflicts arising from conflicting interests in the sphere of labor, healthcare, social security, education; for all their independence, they are closely related to such types of conflicts as economic and political.
Changes in social relations in modern Russia are accompanied by an expansion of the scope of conflicts, since they involve not only large social groups, but also territories that are both nationally homogeneous and inhabited by different ethnic groups. In turn, interethnic conflicts (you will learn about them later) give rise to territorial, religious, migration and other problems. Most modern researchers believe that in the social relations of modern Russian society there are two types of hidden conflicts that have not yet clearly manifested themselves. The first is the conflict between hired workers and the owners of the means of production. This is largely due to the fact that workers, after half a century of social security and all the rights in the field of social policy and labor relations with which they were endowed in Soviet society, find it difficult to understand and accept their new status a hired worker forced to work in market conditions. The other is the conflict between the country's poor majority and the rich minority, which accompanies the accelerated process of social stratification.
The development of social conflict is influenced by many conditions. These include the intentions of the parties to the conflict (to achieve a compromise or completely eliminate the opponent); attitude towards means of physical (including armed) violence; level of trust between the parties (how willing they are to follow certain rules of interaction); adequacy of the conflicting parties' assessments of the true state of affairs.
All social conflicts go through three stages: pre-conflict, immediate conflict and post-conflict.
Let's consider specific example. At one enterprise, due to the real threat of bankruptcy, the workforce had to be reduced by a quarter. This prospect worried almost everyone: employees feared layoffs, and management had to decide who to fire. When it was no longer possible to postpone the decision, the administration announced a list of those who were to be fired first. There were legitimate demands from candidates for dismissal to explain why they were being fired; applications began to be submitted to the labor dispute commission, and some decided to go to court. Resolving the conflict took several months, and the company continued to operate with fewer employees. The pre-conflict stage is a period during which contradictions accumulate (in in this case caused by the need to reduce staff). The immediate conflict stage is a set of certain actions. It is characterized by a clash of opposing sides (administration - candidates for dismissal).
The most open form of expression of social conflicts can be various kinds of mass actions: presentation of demands to the authorities by disgruntled social groups; usage public opinion in support of their claims or alternative programs; direct social protests.
Forms of expression of protest can be rallies, demonstrations, picketing, civil disobedience campaigns, strikes, hunger strikes, etc. Organizers of social protest actions must be clearly aware of what specific problems can be solved with the help of a particular action and what kind of public support they can rely on -read. Thus, a slogan that is sufficient to organize a picket can hardly be used to organize a campaign of civil disobedience. (What historical examples of such actions do you know?)
To successfully resolve a social conflict, it is necessary to timely determine its true causes. The opposing sides should be interested in jointly searching for ways to eliminate the causes that gave rise to their rivalry. At the post-conflict stage, measures are taken to finally eliminate contradictions (in the example under consideration - dismissal of employees,, if possible, removal of socio-psychological tension in the relationship between the administration and the remaining employees, search for optimal ways to avoid such a situation in the future).
Conflict resolution can be partial or complete. Complete resolution means the end of the conflict, a radical change in the entire conflict situation. In this case, a kind of psychological restructuring occurs: the “image of the enemy” is transformed into the “image of the partner”, the attitude towards struggle is replaced by an attitude towards cooperation. The main disadvantage of partial conflict resolution is that only its external shape, but the reasons that gave rise to the confrontation remain.
Let's look at some of the most common conflict resolution methods.
The method of avoiding conflicts means leaving or threatening to leave, and consists in avoiding meetings with the enemy. But avoiding conflict does not mean eliminating it, because its cause remains. The negotiation method involves the parties exchanging opinions. This will help reduce the severity of the conflict, understand the opponent’s arguments, and objectively assess both the true balance of power and the very possibility of reconciliation. Negotiations allow you to consider alternative situations, achieve mutual understanding, reach agreement, consensus, and open the way to cooperation. The method of using mediation is expressed as follows: the warring parties resort to the services of intermediaries ( public organizations, individuals, etc.). What conditions are necessary for successful conflict resolution? First of all, it is necessary to timely and accurately determine its causes; identify objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals. The parties to the conflict must free themselves from mistrust of each other and thereby become participants in negotiations in order to publicly and convincingly defend their positions and consciously create an atmosphere of public exchange of opinions. Without such mutual interest of the parties in overcoming contradictions, mutual recognition of the interests of each of them, a joint search for ways to overcome the conflict is practically impossible. All negotiators must show a tendency towards consensus, that is, towards agreement.
Conflict is a very capacious concept. It is studied from different positions and in various aspects by many sciences: philosophy, sociology, psychology, jurisprudence, history and political science. Conflict is the basis of any contradiction, and it, in turn, is a stimulus for any changes, sometimes constructive and progressive, and sometimes destructive, destructive. Most often, the concept of conflict is considered in the relationship between people and social groups; in psychology, conflict is also deep intrapersonal experiences and contradictions that give rise to life crises and depression, but this does not always lead to negative consequences. Very often, internal conflict is a stimulus for development, the opening of new life horizons and hidden potential that a person does not realize.
The study of conflict is based on a set of different concepts that make up this complex phenomenon: its dynamics, methods of managing conflict and its typology. Moreover, these concepts can be correlated with various conflicts - social, interpersonal and intrapersonal, but in each of them they will have their own characteristics.
Dynamics of conflict
Conflict is a dynamic, evolving process. The following main stages of its development are distinguished: pre-conflict situation, open conflict and the stage of its completion.
The latent stage preceding an open conflict is the formation of all its structural elements. First of all, the cause of the confrontation arises and its participants appear, and then the parties become aware of the opposition to the current situation as a conflict. The dynamics of the conflict can develop further if, at the first stage, the main contradictions are not resolved peacefully and amicably.
The second stage is the transition of its participants to conflict behavior, the features of which are defined in psychology and conflictology. The dynamics of the conflict at this stage are characterized by an expansion in the number of participants in the confrontation, disorganized actions of the parties directed against each other, a transition from solving problems in business ways to personal accusations, very often with a sharply negative emotional attitude, as well as a high degree of tension leading to stress.
The dynamics of the development of the conflict at this stage are designated by the term escalation, i.e. the increase in destructive, destructive actions of the conflicting parties, often leading to irreversible catastrophic consequences.
Finally, the dynamics of the conflict in the last stage is the search for ways to resolve it. Various methods, techniques and strategies for conflict management are used here, conflict specialists and psychologists are involved. As a rule, resolution is carried out in two ways: by transforming the reasons underlying it, and by restructuring the subjective ideal perception of a given situation in the minds of its participants.
It should be noted that conflict resolution strategies do not always lead to complete success. Quite often, everything ends in a partial result, when the visible forms of the emergence and course of a conflict situation are eliminated, but the emotional tension of the participants is not relieved, which can cause new confrontations to arise.
Complete resolution of a conflict situation occurs only when all its external contradictions and causes are removed, and all internal, emotional and psychological factors are eliminated.
The most difficult task at the last resolution stage of the conflict is the transformation, changing the subjective ideal perception of the causes of the confrontation in the minds of the participants on each side. If this goal is achieved by the mediators or the management of the organization, then the conflict resolution will be successful.
Conflict, interpersonal or intrapersonal, proceeds according to a standard pattern and has the same stages and methods of resolution, only, of course, with its own specifics.
Summarizing the work of the American scientist E. Mayo and other representatives of the functionalist (integration) movement, the following negative consequences of conflicts are highlighted:
- · destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, decrease in controllability;
- · distracting personnel from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
- · increasing emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of the “main” and others;
- · weakening of opportunities for communication and cooperation with opponents in the future;
- · distracting the conflict participants from solving the organization’s problems and fruitlessly wasting their strength, energy, resources and time fighting each other.
Positive consequences of conflict
In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) consider them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results:
- · initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization there are always certain people, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
- · articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the pressing problem more clearly and creates favorable conditions for solving it;
- · Forming among the participants in the conflict a sense of belonging to the decision made as a result, which facilitates its implementation;
- · encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions that eliminate the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other’s interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
- · development of the ability of the parties to the conflict to cooperate in the future, when the conflict is resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Fair competition that leads to consensus increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
- · defusing psychological tension in relationships between people, clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
- · development of skills and abilities among conflict participants in relatively painless solutions to problems that arise in the future;
- · strengthening group cohesion in the event of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, the easiest way to unite a group and muffle or even overcome internal discord is to find a common enemy, a competitor. External conflict is capable of extinguishing internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose relevance, severity and are forgotten.
The real ratio of functional and dysfunctional consequences of a conflict directly depends on their nature, the causes that give rise to them, as well as on skillful conflict management.
conflict behavior problem