Positions of the conflicting parties and their role in the analysis of the conflict. Conflict: types and methods of conflict resolution The internal position of the conflict participant is determined

The conflict leads to the desire to seize, win back a certain “zone” corresponding to one’s self-determination, infringe upon, limiting the interests of the other side, or change the balance of forces and the position of the enemy.

Attitude is a way of expressing your interest and a way of behavior in a particular situation. Very often, a conflict occurs not so much because of incompatible interests, but because of a way of expressing their interests that is unacceptable for the opposite side.

There are situations in which one or more subjects imitate activity and aggressiveness in relationships, while the subjects seem to enter the role of an irreconcilable party when there is no conflict yet, or it has already died out. Most often, such a state is caused by personal ambitions, emotional or characterological characteristics of the subject, or any interests. It should be noted that such behavior is not harmless, since it itself is conflict-generating.

Table2

Characteristics of the subjects of the conflict according to the strength of their positions:

As can be seen from the table, conflict naturally arises only if the interests of powerful subjects are opposite; in other cases, stable relations are possible.

The most typical programs of behavior in conflict:

1. Achieving a goal at the expense of the other side and thereby bringing the conflict to a higher stage.

2. Submission to the other side, somewhat reducing the level of tension, but maintaining the conflict itself, transferring it to a latent stage.

3. Peaceful end to the conflict, if possible, leaving the dangerous zone of aggressive interactions.

4. Active cooperation to develop a solution that satisfies both parties.

Perception of conflict

Any life situation is necessarily different from how people perceive it. In general, perception is characterized by a certain distortion that reflects the subjective awareness of reality. The subjective reflection of reality is based on:

· individual characteristics,

· life experience;

· the level of education;

· personality orientation and inherent interests;

· communication barriers and other factors.

The distortion of perception of a conflict situation is even more significant than a normal one. The degree of distortion in the perception of a conflict situation depends on the strength of the influence of many factors. The most significant are the following:

- intellectual potential and freedom of thinking of subjects;

- the influence of negative emotions on perception;

- qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the subjects’ experience and outlook;

- availability of objective information about the situation;

- the significance of the subjects’ goals in the context of the situation;

- psychological characteristics of the subjects (type of temperament, character traits, inclinations, and so on);

- mental states (stress, health problems, frustration, alcohol or drug intoxication and others);

- the degree of misunderstanding between people;

- psychological readiness for self-defense from the a priori aggressiveness of one’s partner.

Reflecting the real situation, perception creates subjective images that are somewhat different from it. These images of perception, as a rule, represent a stereotype of consciousness.

The stereotype is characterized by the following features:

1. schematic and simplified image;

2. lack of independence of production, that is, it was rather perceived from other people than obtained in direct experience with reality, resistance to the influence of new experience;

3. selectivity of perception, which is expressed in an active search for facts that confirm the formed image and ignoring or free interpretation of facts that do not correspond to it.

As a rule, the degree of stereotyping is examined using four points:

Sketchy;

Truth;

- production autonomy;

- fixity.

Stereotypic perception narrows the sources of obtaining the necessary information about the situation, limits the search for options for solving it, increases the likelihood of confrontation and naturally leads to an inadequate assessment of one’s own capabilities and the potential of the enemy.

Subjective images have a strong impact on the emotions and feelings of participants, causing mistrust, fear, suspicion and hostility; or, on the contrary, calmness and tranquility. These images necessarily strengthen or weaken the desire to achieve one’s goal in a particular situation.

American conflictologist K. Boulding noted that distorted images develop according to their inherent patterns, so, under the pressure of circumstances, they can change and disappear.

In general, a distorted perception of a conflict situation increases the likelihood of an irrational choice of behavior in a conflict.

Rational choice is more productive and involves a sober analysis and assessment of all possible alternatives, as well as predicting the results.

Choosing a Behavior Strategy

The choice of behavior model is influenced by the time factor: not everything can be immediately understood objectively.

General and typical dilemmas that arise before a subject forced to make a choice:

1. “Aspiration - aspiration” - you need to choose one of two attractive alternatives. Not typical for conflict.

2. “Avoidance - avoidance” is a choice between two “evils”, without gaining anything. The goal is to incur the least losses, with a greater likelihood of maintaining existing potential.

3. “Striving - avoidance” - the same thing simultaneously attracts and repels. For example, the use of violence, on the one hand, is effective, but, on the other hand, it can cause a response.

4. Double “Striving - avoidance” is associated with a complex of contradictory assessments of the situation, when both positive and negative sides are seen in not one, but two or more alternatives. More typical of conflict.

The strength of choice depends on the following

interrelated factors:

Patterns of resolving internal contradictions

in the cases under consideration:

1. The closer the goal is, the stronger the aspiration tendency (aspiration gradient).

2. The closer the feared object is, the stronger the avoidance tendency (avoidance gradient).

3. The avoidance gradient grows faster than the aspiration gradient (i.e., the danger is perceived stronger than the benefit from a possible confrontation).

4. In the event of a conflict between two incompatible reactions, the stronger one wins.

5. The strength of the reinforced response tendency increases with the number of reinforcements (i.e., the repetition of conflict episodes significantly influences the behavior of the participants).

The listed trends to a certain extent make it possible to explain the choice of behavior of the participants in the conflict. But this choice depends on many other psychological factors (intellectual, volitional, emotional) and cumulative external conditions, including completely random, unpredictable ones.

Developing over time, the conflict goes through several stages:

1. Latent stage.

2. Open stage.

3. Completion stage.

Latent stage

The latent stage of the conflict - i.e. hidden, when all elements of the conflict are present (participants, object, subject of the conflict), with the exception of external actions.

Formally, the latent stage consists of five successive stages:

1. The emergence of an objective conflict situation.

Conflict situation- this is such a coincidence of circumstances and human interests that objectively creates the ground for real confrontation between subjects.

Conflict situation

Characteristics of the conflict situation:

· it has objective content, which is determined by events that actually occur.

· it has a subjective meaning that depends on the parties' interpretation of events.

Stages of ripening of a conflict situation:

1. Awareness by at least one of the subjects of their interests in this situation.

2. Awareness of circumstances that impede the satisfaction of interests. Obstacles may:

a) stem from an objective situation, regardless of position

other subjects - potential participants in the conflict;

b) be your own personal qualities (only internal, subjective);

c) be objective, personalized, i.e. come from

specific subject.

3. Awareness of one's interests and corresponding obstacles by the other party.

4. The beginning of actions taken by one of the parties to defend its interests, which infringe on the interests of the other party.

These stages do not necessarily alternate in the specified sequence. Some of them may fall out, others may be repeated.

The latent stage is the precursor to conflict. It does not exist yet if only one side acts, or the participants carry out only mental operations (planning behavior, thinking, predicting the development of the conflict). Conflict is a form of interaction and is necessarily expressed in behavioral actions rather than intentions and designs.

Often at this stage of development of the conflict, the parties (or one of the parties) take non-conflict actions to resolve the controversial situation.

At this stage of conflict development, various options for resolving the problem situation are possible:

· transition of a conflict situation into an open conflict,

· non-conflict resolution of contradictions in an asymmetric way,

· non-conflict resolution of a contradiction in a symmetrical way,

· ignoring the situation and mutual refusal of active actions.

A conflict situation always contains a threat to the security of one of the parties (or all), at least that is how it is perceived. The perception of a situation as threatening one’s position and interests can be:

· potential threat.

· immediate threat.

Depending on the degree of perceived threat, subjects evaluate their incentives to initiate confrontation. That is, the perception of the situation as directly threatening is an important factor in the development of the conflict.

A necessary condition for the development of a conflict situation can be called incident – a pretext used by one of the parties to start a confrontation. This occasion is a suitable basis for the occasion, allowing, without damaging one’s own reputation or the balance of power, to undertake the first attempt at realizing one’s interests in the current situation.

The reason for starting a conflict may arise from the situation, or it may also be consciously or unconsciously created by one of the participants.

The response of the other side is the beginning of the conflict, since the positions of the parties are clearly defined and the confrontation begins.

Open stage

Mutual actions of the parties lead to a change in the situation. Open stage of conflict begins after one of the participants “presses the trigger” and the parties move on to mutual actions aimed at infringing on each other’s interests.

The open stage is characterized by:

1. The conflict is obvious to everyone involved. The actions of the participants become practical, they take on an external form (including the use of mass communication, actions to seize a disputed object, threats, violence, etc.).

2. Third parties are aware of the conflict and influence its course to varying degrees.

At this moment, the conflict acquires stability, which is expressed in the fact that all subjects drawn into its orbit are forced to obey the rules prescribed for their roles, gradually losing personal control over the development of the situation and the freedom to choose the best alternative to their own model of behavior.

Thus, the internal logic of social conflict forces subjects to follow a certain scenario. This does not mean that the ending is predetermined and any positive efforts are useless. Each moment in the development of the conflict has its own bifurcation points, providing several options for further development. The choice of option always remains with the participants in the confrontation, therefore all social conflicts have their own characteristics and distinctive features.

The conflict behavior of the parties consists of oppositely directed actions of the participants in the conflict. The complexity of its analysis is determined by the fact that externally observed confrontation often does not provide adequate ideas about its true causes. In reality, a conflict may be based on deeper contradictions than those that serve as the subject of confrontation.

A situation is possible when the parties do not realize the true reasons for the confrontation, the real subject of the conflict is hidden from them.

Another development of the confrontation between the parties is also possible when they are aware of two or more “plans” of the conflict: they are aware of the true subject of the conflict, but consciously transfer their confrontation to a different plane (for example, starting a controversy in the press), taking into account public opinion (demands of decency, attempts rid yourself of accusations of “personal” biases, selfish motives, etc.).

However, the essence of the conflict remains the alternation of external reactions aimed at asserting one’s interests and limiting the interests of the enemy.

Conditionally all actions of the parties

classified into

Basic steps

Types of actions that characterize

different types of confrontation:

1. Actions aimed at capturing and retaining a disputed object depend on the nature, type, level of the object and the participants in the conflict.

2. Creating interference and causing damage in order to block enemy activities and reduce their effectiveness.

3. Offensive and offensive words - cause offense, hurt pride, honor, dignity, deprive self-control (psychologically weaken the enemy).

4. Submission and capture of the subject are aimed at demonstrating power and limiting the freedom of the other party.

5. Causing direct physical harm (violence) - causing pain, damage, injury, etc.

If the parties to the conflict do not make adequate efforts to end the confrontation, the social conflict rapidly “gains momentum.”

Conflict Changes

The intensification of social conflict is expressed in its growth “horizontally” and “vertically”. The horizontal expansion of the conflict is characterized by increasing the number of people participating in it. The expansion of the circle of participants occurs as a result of the efforts of the warring parties to form a camp of their supporters, who, in the process of interaction, gradually go from an outside observer and sympathizer to an active accomplice, or even become one of the warring parties

As a rule, these events are accompanied by a change in the subject of the conflict, which consists in a transition to new, deeper contradictions and differentiation of existing problems.

The vertical development of the conflict is determined by the natural aggravation of relations, which is expressed in an increase in hostile actions of the parties, that is, in escalation confrontation.

The escalation mechanism operates as follows: the actions of one side lead to multiply enhanced response actions of the other, which is again followed by a multiply enhanced response from the first party, etc. In such a situation, it is no longer possible to find “right” and “guilty”.

Internal conflict changes are also very important. Basically they consist in changing the subject of the conflict and, accordingly, the form of interaction ( from business to personalities; from arguments - to claims, insults or physical influence).

Experts explain it as follows: a person attaches a significant personal touch to the fruits of his intellect. Criticism of the results of his activities is perceived as a negative assessment of his abilities, of the person himself as an individual. That is, criticism poses a threat to an individual’s self-esteem, which leads to attempts to protect it. Such efforts naturally lead to a shift in the subject of the conflict to the “personal” plane (for example, “the fool himself”).

Forms of conflict escalation

Researchers identify two forms of escalation:

Intensification,

- increasing aggressive behavior of the parties.

Intensification is characterized by increased exchange of aggressive actions between the parties, accompanied by threats and mutual accusations.

The intensification of the aggressive nature of actions is expressed in the transition from claims to accusations, then to threats and bluffs, and so on, up to violent actions.

Typically, the two forms of escalation complement each other and naturally lead to alienation and polarization of the parties.

Western conflictology identifies several conflict escalation models.

Model “attack - defense”. Its essence is expressed in the presentation of demands by one of the parties, to which the other party responds with actions to maintain the existing situation. Failure to comply with demands and the actual refusal to recognize their legality sets the subject up to put forward new, more stringent demands. Toughening of initial requirements indicates a transition to predominantly irrational behavior and is accompanied by an increase in negative emotions (anger, rage, anger, despair, etc.)

Model “attack - attack” is more typical for a social conflict and replaces the above model if the conflict is left to chance. Its essence lies in the mutual, alternate intensification of the aggressive behavior of the parties. In response to demands or accusations, more stringent accusations and demands are put forward. Being “captive” of negative emotions and having lost the ability to think logically, the parties pointedly ignore even completely “harmless” and legitimate demands. They are driven by an obsessive desire to “punish” each other for committed offenses or seditious thoughts.

Both models are united by the dependence of escalation on the interaction of parties to the conflict. As a rule, ignoring demands or making counterclaims is not so much a reaction to their content, how much for the submission form. Usually, in this way the individual protects his own dignity and personal worth from unlawful attacks from the other side. This is how the transition from “business” to “personalities” occurs.

The escalation of tension is also due to intrapersonal processes occurring with all participants in the conflict and, above all, with the warring parties. This escalation option is called “structural changes” Participants in a conflict become dependent on the decisions they make. The mechanism of action of this psychological “trap” is known: the subject is afraid that by abandoning his initial ill-conceived intentions and actions regarding his opponent, he will discredit himself in the opinion of the public and will lose his authority and influence. Also, each participant in the conflict spends significant resources during the confrontation and expects a certain return on this kind of “investment.” The more strength and other resources a subject has invested in a conflict, the more ready he is to go to the end in his confrontation and achieve victory at any cost.

So, during the escalation process the following changes occur:

- from easy to difficult;

- from small to large;

- from specific to general;

- from rational and constructive to irrational and destructive.

The internal changes that occur to the participants have a noticeable impact on their relationships.

Psychologists (for example: G. Vollmer, K. Lorenz, A. Antsupov, A. Shipilov) have established that during the development of a conflict, an avalanche-like regression of the conscious sphere of the human psyche occurs. This process is based on the unconscious and subconscious levels of the psyche, reproducing in reverse order the process of its development. Psychologists identify the following stages in the regression of the conscious sphere of the psyche of a person participating in a conflict:

1. During the period of maturation and awareness of the conflict situation

· the importance of one’s own desires and arguments increases,

· there is a fear of losing opportunities to jointly solve a common problem,

· mental tension and anxiety increases,

· all actions of the other side are perceived as signals for escalation.

2. The beginning of escalation is accompanied by the following:

· hopes for a successful resolution of the situation are associated not with discussions, but with actions,

· a balanced approach to the analysis of reality gives way to a simplified one, which is based on attempts to intimidate the enemy and force him to change his position,

· the actual problem and objective contradiction give way to the opponent’s personality.

3. Mental functioning regresses to a level approximately corresponding to the age of 6-8 years:

· there is no willingness to take into account the thoughts, feelings, position and interests of another person,

· perception of the world is black and white, everything that is not “I” is bad,

· everything that contradicts one’s opinion is rejected.

4. Further development of regression is manifested in the following:

· absoluteization of the negative assessment of the opposite side and the positive assessment of oneself,

· “sacred values”, moral obligations and beliefs are at stake,

· force and violence take impersonal forms,

· the opposite side is clearly perceived as an enemy and is devalued to the status of a “thing.”

In relation to other people (within their group or not related to the conflict), the same subjects, as a rule, behave in a normal and dignified manner. Therefore, not every observer can adequately assess the conditions of the parties to the conflict and take the necessary measures to resolve it.

It should also be noted that regression of the conscious sphere of the psyche is not inevitable and is not inherent in all people without exception. The experience of constructive interaction, moral principles of the individual and certain character traits in difficult life situations are “life belts” that allow a person to preserve himself and resolve the problem in a dignified manner.

Researchers highlight escalation thresholds , the passage of which means a new round of tension spiral and the irreversible loss of many opportunities to rationally solve the problem, taking into account the wishes of all interested parties.

During this period, the conflict is characterized by the following sequence, dynamics of events and behavior of the participants:

1. Despite disagreements, the parties retain the ability to recognize the existence of a common problem and their own responsibility for solving it. Participants typically:

· respect for each other;

· the ability to hear each other;

· opinion exchange.

Attempts to cooperate and occasional breakdowns lead to increased tension and friction.

2. As the conflict develops, differences of opinion on specific issues are translated into accusations against the personality of the opponent, who has become an adversary - the bearer of the cause of the conflict. The parties provoke each other to take a defensive position.

Interaction primarily occurs in the form of disputes and quarrels - that is, intellectual violence.

3. The initial problem continues to grow. From the details of a specific conflict, participants move on to dubious generalizations. An atmosphere of uncontrollability of the situation arises and reasonable dialogue is disrupted.

The parties move from words to practical actions and thereby overcome the first threshold of escalation.

Actions are being taken to protect their reputation, and a camp of supporters is actively forming.

A team where a conflict occurs is divided into coalitions, and its psychological atmosphere changes. Non-participating members of the team feel an obligation to join one side, since maintaining neutrality leads to a loss of influence in the team.

4. This is followed by alienation and polarization of the parties, which are manifested in the following patterns:

· negotiations are possible not with an opponent, but with an intermediary, third parties;

· negative discussion of the enemy’s business and personal qualities;

· in communications, the amount of false information is increasing, which is supplemented by rumors and speculation about each other;

· contacts between the parties are deliberately limited;

· a camp of its supporters is formed.

Participants waste their moral potential.

Thus, the parties pass the second threshold of escalation of tension.

5. Now the confrontation becomes very tough, the strategy of threats dominates. There is an escalation of the conflict, which is characterized by:

· the parties commit systematic destructive actions against the potential sanctions of the other party;

· in the intervals between active actions, the parties “spur up” themselves with memories of the enemy’s recent actions, reacting more sharply to them and reliving the events that took place;

· actions unfold according to the scheme: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”;

· mistrust of each other, which covers all connections, and deception dominates the relationship.

6. The conflict develops into open hostility. Favorable conditions are created for the use of violence and suppression of resistance at any cost. The parties are balancing on the brink of complete destruction and self-destruction.

Such a development of events does not pass without a trace for those around us - a change occurs in the psychological structure within the group where the conflict arose:

· Alienation is growing;

· members of the group not participating in the conflict feel an obligation to join one of the sides;

· Moderate group members lose influence.

Intergroup conflict generates social tension that accompanies and corresponds to its scale.

Social tension is a special emotional and psychological state of social consciousness, a specific situation of perception and assessment of reality. This is a reflection of a conflict situation in human psychology.

Social tension is characterized by:

1. The spread of dissatisfaction with the existing situation.

2. Loss of trust in government when its authority and authority fall; there is a feeling of danger.

3. The dominance of pessimistic assessments of the future in the public consciousness, the spread of rumors and speculation that increase emotional excitement and mass anxiety.

4. Manifestation at the behavioral level in spontaneous actions (rushing demand for goods, etc.), demonstrations, rallies and other forms of civil disobedience.

Since it is impossible to fully satisfy all the needs of all categories of society, there is a “background” tension. It is an integral element of social relations.

There is also a threshold of social tension when it becomes explosive (in the presence of appropriate social detonators).

The last stage is the end of the conflict

All conflicts are changeable and different from each other, so there is no single system for ending them.

The conflict may be:

1. Exhausted and resolved by reconciliation of the parties.

2. Terminated due to the withdrawal of one of the parties from it, or its destruction.

3. The development of the conflict can be stopped, or the conflict can be stopped as a result of the intervention of a third party.

The end of a conflict is the cessation of the actions of all warring parties, regardless of the reasons why this happened. This is a broader concept than conflict resolution.

Conflict resolution - one or another positive action of the participants that stops the confrontation by peaceful or forceful methods.

In general, the following events are typical for this situation:

1. Tendencies are outlined towards the normalization of the conflict and its elimination (victory of one of the parties, depletion of resources, etc.).

2. Episodic outbreaks of confrontation. Aggressive moods are fueled by memories of the troubles and evil caused to each other.

3. A solution to the problem at hand is gradually emerging. The emotional-volitional sphere of interaction is normalized.

Although conflict, like any social phenomenon, cannot last forever, it should not be left to chance. Because there is a real danger of it merging with other conflicts, which can completely destroy the social system.

Example:Typology of perception of businessman and consumer

in the development of the “Rich-Poor” conflict in Russia

It often happens in life that the views, opinions, interests and goals of two people do not coincide. Even close people quarrel and conflict. Is it worth talking about the conflicts that arise in a work team, where people work in conditions of competition and struggle for a “place in the sun”.

For work teams, conflicts are a frequent and normal phenomenon. Even if a person does his job honestly, conscientiously, is non-conflict and good-natured, he may find himself in the midst of a conflict. Intrigues, gossip, slander, clashes, scandals, unfortunately, take place in almost any team.

Conflict– a stressful situation that carries both dangers and opportunities for personal growth and development. As in any stressful situation, in a conflict an individual acts instinctively, on a whim, or plays out a standard, habitual strategy of behavior.

Conflicts at work arise when issues of competence, professionalism, social status, authority, principles of the individual or the team as a whole are raised. Contradictions can arise between individual team members, informal groups, a leader and a subordinate, management and the team as a whole.

Stages of conflict development

Any conflict proceeds according to a certain pattern, includingfive stages:

• The emergence and development of a conflict situation. The starting point in a conflict is a conflict incident, a reason for conflict. Someone commits an action/inaction that entails the emergence or aggravation of social contradictions.

• Awareness of conflict. At this stage, it becomes clear that the temporary contradictions caused by the incident have developed into a long-term conflict.

• Open stage of conflict. At this stage, both opponents or one of them proceed to active actions designed to harm the opposite side. In essence, this is “military action in miniature.” Opponents develop tactics and behavioral strategies, draw up plans for attack and retreat, attract allies, and so on.

• Development of the conflict. At this stage, the conflict escalates even more; the parties put forward specific demands and conditions to each other, without understanding the essence and causes of the conflict, and act impulsively and emotionally only in their own interests.

• Conflict resolution. Depending on the complexity and scale of the conflict situation, the following methods and means are used to resolve it:

• organizing a constructive conversation with the participation of a disinterested third party with the goal of finding a compromise,
• attracting from outside or creating commissions to resolve conflicts and disputes in the workforce,
• involvement of trade union organizations to resolve the conflict,
• personnel changes (transfer to another position, dismissal),
• drawing up a claim and transferring the case to an administrative court.

The best way to resolve a conflict is a conversation, clarifying the subject of the dispute, the reasons for its occurrence and finding a solution, but if the conflict is very complex, a trial cannot be avoided.

Behavioral strategies in conflict

Highlight five strategiesPersonal behavior in conflict:

• Avoidance.By choosing this strategy, a person consciously or unconsciously avoids the conflict, does not aggravate the situation, but also does not take steps to find a solution.

• Device. This strategy is aimed at passive cooperation. The subject yields to the enemy, which softens the conflict, makes it relative, hidden, but still does not solve the problem that caused it.

• Rivalry. This is an active and aggressive position aimed at forcing the opponent to concede in the dispute. This is where competition, dominance and confrontation take place.

• Compromise.The parties to the conflict manage to find a common language, reach mutual understanding and come to a common solution that only partially satisfies the parties to the conflict. Compromise does not solve difficulties and does not completely eliminate contradictions, but in some situations it is the only reasonable and humane way out of the current situation.

• Cooperation.This is an ideal conflict resolution option as the needs of both parties are met. This is possible if the parties to the dispute understand the value of relations, their priority, respect for each other’s interests, rights and freedoms. The subjects manage not only to understand each other, but also to integrate two different positions in the dispute.

It is in cooperation that the relationships between the subjects of the conflict qualitatively change, and each individual who took part in it receives the opportunity for growth and development.

Any conflict is not endless, sooner or later it will be resolved! Whether its participant wins or loses depends on the ability to cooperate with the people around him.

The world is a tragedy for those

who feels and

comedy for those who think

W.Shakespeare

Conflicts are inevitable in any social structure, since they are a necessary condition for social development. The life of society consists of conflicts and consensuses, agreement and confrontation.

They are inevitable and inescapable, and therefore should be considered as a natural part of human life. Conflict must be accepted as a form of normal human interaction. Although conflict may not be the best form of human interaction. The assessment of a conflict depends on the attitude towards it.

Conflict does not always and does not necessarily lead to destruction. On the contrary, it is one of the main processes serving to preserve the whole. Under certain conditions, even open conflicts can help maintain the viability and stability of the social whole. Conflict should not be perceived as an unambiguously destructive phenomenon and should not be assessed in the same unambiguous way. Modern understanding of conflict suggests that conflict is not necessarily bad.

The social structure of society is an inexhaustible source of conflict, and the more complex the social structure, the more differentiated the society, the more freedom it has, the more divergent and sometimes mutually exclusive interests, goals, values ​​and, accordingly, the more sources for potential conflicts. However, in a complex social system there are also mechanisms for successful conflict resolution. The task of any society and social community is to prevent (minimize as much as possible) the negative consequences of the conflict and use it to positively resolve the problems that have arisen. It is no coincidence that working with conflicts is the main social order for a practical psychologist.

Management theorists recognize that the complete absence of conflict within an organization is not only an impossible condition, but also undesirable. Conflict is a function of the situation, i.e. directly depends on the participants in the conflict, their previous experience of interaction, on their status position in relation to each other.

In this regard, the ability to cogently and convincingly defend one’s position in various conflict situations is important. Persuasiveness arises when what is said causes a positive resonance in the soul of the opponent. The art of conflict resolution is the art of entering the world of other people in order to influence it. How to do this in extreme conditions of conflict interaction, when no side has a monopoly on the truth? It is naive to believe that the opponent will quickly agree with the opposite point of view, therefore it is important to master the methodology of recognition, penetration and influence as the basis for successful conflict resolution.

What are conflicts and what are they like?

Before discussing conflict resolution techniques, you should obviously understand what conflict is. At first glance, everything is simple here. In our minds, the word “conflict” associates such unpleasant things as “quarrel”, “scandal”, “dispute”, “confrontation”, “showdown”, etc. Let's take a closer look at them.

Quarrels and scandals are undoubtedly associated with conflicts. These are the forms and types of manifestation of conflict relationships. This is how conflictual relationships between people sometimes (but not always) manifest themselves. Conflict does not necessarily exist in the form of a scandal or quarrel. A quarrel or scandal does not exist without conflict; they are unique indicators that there is a conflict. But conflicts without quarrels and scandals are found everywhere. For example, in cases where a person wants to do something, but this desire comes into conflict with the fear of punishment. There is a conflict, there is no quarrel or scandal. And this conflict, like any other, sooner or later must somehow be resolved. A person either gives up his desire (the fear of the law is stronger!), or acts according to the principle “If you can’t, but really want to, then you can,” or he acts without thinking about the consequences - desire wins.

So the conflict may or may not give rise to a quarrel or scandal. Conflict, so to speak, is the parent, and quarrels or scandals are his “children.” But parents and children are not the same thing. So our ordinary everyday ideas in this case do not bring us one step closer to understanding the essence of the matter. On the contrary, they often cloud the essence of the matter, preventing us from separating the essence from the form, the main thing from the secondary, the essential from the unimportant.

We will find the answer to this question by turning to a psychological analysis of the phenomenon that interests us. Conflict is a variant of the development of relationships between people associated with their psychological positions. So, modern psychology defines conflict as “an acute clash of opposing positions in the process of interaction between people”.

Conflict is a form of manifestation of contradiction; conflict is a form of active social resistance; a collision of approximately equal in strength, but opposite in direction tendencies (motives, goals, actions) of interaction participants.

This is the most general definition available. Any, absolutely any, conflict “falls” under this definition. But we do not need this definition on its own. From this general definition we can derive the characteristics of any conflict. And knowing these signs, we will be able to determine whether there is a conflict in our team, family or soul or not. There are signs - there is a conflict, there are no signs - there is no conflict.

So, the first sign of conflict is the presence, the existence of opposing positions. What is a “position” in a conflict? This is what makes a person act: views, point of view, goals, aspirations, desires, motives, beliefs, etc. A person can abandon his psychological position either voluntarily, or under the pressure of circumstances, he can change his psychological position to an objectively more advantageous one, for example, from the position of a “malicious violator of labor discipline” to the position of a “repentant sinner” and vice versa. And it can do this quite easily. But only if his goals do not suffer, if this does not lead him to the need to abandon his views, beliefs, that is, his position. In general, life positions are much more stable than psychological positions, and it is extremely difficult for a person to abandon them. Our aspirations and our interests are expressed in positions.

It is clear that different members of the team have different aspirations and interests, and, therefore, different positions. They may partially or completely coincide. This is normal, and the mere fact that a team has different positions on some issues is not a sign of conflict. But when the positions are not just different, but opposite, mutually exclusive, then things take a different turn. Here you can no longer say that there is no conflict. True, it is also impossible to say with complete certainty that it exists.

In order for us to say with confidence that there is a conflict, it is not enough to record the presence of opposing positions. There needs to be a clash between these positions. It does not matter in what form this collision will take place, the only important thing is whether it exists or not. The second essential sign of any conflict is precisely the clash of opposing positions.

In order to determine whether there is a conflict in your team, family or soul or not, you need to answer two simple questions:

a) whether there are opposing positions;

b) whether there is a collision between them.

If the answer to both questions is positive, you can conclude that there is a conflict and, accordingly, take action to eliminate it. If there is no positive answer to at least one question, this means that there is no conflict.

In order to master the conflict, we take certain actions. They may or may not be effective. Our actions to master the conflict will be effective under one mandatory condition, namely, if as a result of our actions:

a) the collision of opposing positions stops or ceases, or

b) positions cease to be opposite.

If we, in the course of our actions, are able to obtain this result, then this will mean that we have managed to stop the unfavorable development of the situation and that we have mastered the conflict.

However, there are situations when, taking the same actions to master the conflict, in one case we get results and the conflict ends (stops), and in another case they, these actions of ours, remain ineffective, or even “add fuel to fire,” worsening an already tense situation. What's the matter here? At first glance, the answer is simple and obvious - just as there are no two identical leaves on the same tree, there are no two identical conflicts. They differ from each other in the number of participants (as, for example, an ordinary family quarrel differs from an armed international conflict), their social status and even gender (they say that conflicts in a male team are different from conflicts in a female group), the forms of clashes (one thing is a conflict between a boss and a subordinate according to the “calling on the carpet” option, and something completely different – ​​between a mother-in-law and a son-in-law regarding his contribution to the family budget). And since there are no identical conflicts, there are no universal ways to resolve them, and therefore the same actions aimed at mastering the conflict can bring success in one case, but in another, on the contrary, can worsen the situation. And we can only rely on intuition, chance, or fate.

All this is true. And intuition for a leader is not the least important thing. However, a modern manager, a manager-leader cannot afford to act, relying on “maybe”, trailing behind events, and being late in making management decisions. On the contrary, he strives to actively influence the situation, changes it, eliminating unfavorable trends in its development. He does this consciously, that is, with knowledge of the matter, based on an accurate and complete analysis. And analysis, including the analysis of conflict, is a way to distinguish essence from form, the main thing from the secondary. After all, no matter how different, for example, two birch leaves are from each other - in color, size or shape, they remain birch leaves, and not alder or oak. They differ from the leaves of alder or oak in their own, unique to them, characteristics. It is important that these are birch leaves, and never, under any circumstances, will they become oak or alder leaves.

The same goes for conflicts. The fact is that there are several types of conflicts, and each type has its own stable signs and traits that are characteristic only of this type and no other. Some signs of one type of conflict may be present in another type, but not necessarily. And only the two main features mentioned above are present in all types without exception. After all, types of conflicts are distinguished depending on the form in which both main features are presented in them. Judge for yourself. If opposing positions collide in a person himself, in his consciousness, soul, inside his personality, then such a conflict is called intrapersonal. An example of this type of conflict would be a situation where a wife wants a divorce from her husband, but a sense of duty to her children and fear of loneliness prevent her from taking this step. When a manager wants to fire an inconvenient subordinate, an intriguer and a brawler in order to maintain calm in the team, but understands that his business will suffer from this step, this is also an intrapersonal conflict.

In all cases when one person has one position, and another has the opposite position, and a clash occurs between them (positions and people) in any form, we are dealing with a conflict interpersonal. Some so-called family conflicts, for example, conflicts between spouses without involving relatives on both sides, friends, neighbors, etc., just like some so-called industrial conflicts, for example, a conflict between a boss and a subordinate over being late for work. work, there are interpersonal conflicts.

Well, when one group of people has one position, and another has the opposite, and a clash occurs between them (positions and groups), then this is intergroup or group conflict. For example, a conflict between two groups in a team, just like an armed interethnic conflict, belongs to the same type - group conflict.

But there is another type of conflict that occurs quite often - conflict between individual and group. It has one significant feature: starting as a clash between an individual and a group, such a conflict always and very quickly develops into either interpersonal or intergroup conflict. Indeed, a subordinate who decides, for example, to openly oppose the opinion of the collective, either looks for supporters, open or hidden, and then the conflict becomes intergroup, or enters into confrontation with the most irreconcilable representatives of the collective’s opinion. And this confrontation can be hidden or obvious, but still in this case the conflict becomes interpersonal. However, in order to be extremely precise, we will say that sometimes, although quite rarely, a conflict between an individual and a group can turn into an intrapersonal conflict.

Each type of conflict has its own, unique to it, development mechanism. Its own anatomy, different from other types. Any intergroup conflict always and everywhere develops as an intergroup conflict, according to its own internal logic. Any interpersonal conflict, both in the family and at work, always develops precisely as an interpersonal conflict, in accordance with the mechanism of interpersonal conflict. This is why, by the way, in one case, the so-called industrial conflict, our actions to overcome it lead to the desired result, but in another case - not.

Thus, we have three different mechanisms for the development of conflicts, each of which strictly corresponds to a specific type of conflict. One extremely important conclusion follows from this. If we want our actions to overcome the conflict to be effective and lead to the desired result, then we must act in strict accordance with the mechanism of this type of conflict. If we act on the basis of the objective psychological mechanism of conflict, we will be able to master the situation. And if we act contrary to this objective mechanism, then this mechanism will be stronger than us, and the results, regardless of our efforts and sincerity of intentions, will be disastrous. However, a question may arise here: if we, trying to master the conflict, act in strict accordance with its internal laws and the mechanism of its development, then will we not thereby push the situation, will we not give the conflict additional acceleration instead of slowing down its progress? its development? Isn’t it better to do the opposite, that is, to act against the conflict mechanism, to counteract it, and thereby delay and slow down its development? No, not better. The conflict develops according to objective psychological laws. And the consequences of these laws can be extremely dire.

Now let's summarize what has been said. So, there are two main signs of any conflict.

1. The presence, existence of two opposing positions.

2. The clash between them.

If the situation you want to understand contains both of these signs, then it is a situation of conflict. If a situation does not contain both of these signs, then it is not a situation of conflict. At the same time, all other circumstances, such as the place where the conflict occurs (family or work collective), its severity, the form of the conflict, etc., do not matter in this case.

Next, when you have determined whether there is a conflict situation or not, and have established that there is one, determine what type of conflict it is. There are three main types of conflicts depending on where, in what “psychological space” these opposing positions collide, namely:

1. intrapersonal
2. interpersonal
3. intergroup (group).

All other circumstances, such as the place and time of the conflict, the social and gender identity of its participants, do not matter in this case.

If you manage to correctly determine whether there is a conflict in the situation you are interested in or not, and if there is one, correctly determine its type, this will help you initially correctly navigate the situation, separate the main from the secondary and act in strict accordance with the objective mechanism for the development of the conflict, which you want to overcome.

Remember that a conflict of one type, for example, intrapersonal, cannot be analyzed, much less do something as a result of this analysis, basing your analysis and your actions on the mechanism of a conflict of another type, for example, interpersonal.

Group Conflict Analysis

Group conflicts have the most destructive consequences. Even in a small team they act as a powerful destructive force. Very often they acquire, so to speak, a chronic form, either dying out or flaring up again, unsettling team members, distracting them from work, and having a negative impact on the psychological state of people. It gets to the point that many people generally believe that this kind of conflict is an inevitable evil and it is generally impossible to do without them. There are also subordinates who are almost proud of their ability to conflict and their ability to stir up conflicts, considering this an excellent way to increase their “rating” among colleagues and gain “respect” from their superiors. Often they manage to manipulate their own manager, forcing him to make decisions and act in such a way as not to cause irritation on the part of this subordinate. A threat to the manager like “Oh, you are so! Well, just wait, I’ll arrange this for you!”, unfortunately, come true from time to time. In this situation, you, as a leader, obviously find yourself in a disadvantageous, losing psychological position. Why? Because in this case, you either begin to act in such a way as not to hurt or offend the “arguer” in order to avoid a possible conflict, that is, in fact, in the interests of the brawler, and not in the interests of the cause. Or you get a conflict with all the ensuing negative consequences - negative, again, for the interests of the business. You can, of course, look for some kind of compromise option, trying to make sure that a conflict does not arise and the matter does not suffer. But in the first, second, and third cases, your actions are determined by the situation of choice in which the potential brawler has placed you. Who then actually leads your team? It turns out that you are in charge of everyone except the “brawler”, and only he is in charge of you.

How to break this vicious circle? Do not be afraid of a possible conflict, and if it arises, then, without getting drawn into it, master it, resolve it even before it gains momentum, will lead to negative consequences. Of course, this is easier said than done. Although this is actually not difficult to do. But, unfortunately, many leaders do not see and do not know other methods of “fighting” the conflict, except for harsh force. What this leads to is well known.

Incorrect, ill-considered actions of a leader often lead to the fact that, having found himself drawn into a group conflict as one of its participants, he actually loses the ability to manage the situation, ceases to be a manager, remaining a leader only formally. However, despite this kind of consequences of group conflicts for the team, for the business, and for the leader himself, many managers find themselves largely unarmed and unprepared to act in these conditions. Why? Because of all types of conflicts, it is intergroup conflicts that have been the least studied.

So, group conflict. Based on the general definition, we can say that intergroup conflict is a clash of opposing positions in a group of people, when one part of the group supports (expresses) one position, and the other part of the group supports the opposite. Thus, during a conflict, a collective or a group is divided into two groups, between which the conflict occurs. Therefore, intergroup conflict can be otherwise called group conflict. In it, the clash between opposing positions occurs in the form of a clash between groups of people. And, conversely, in a clash between groups of people, a clash of certain positions is clearly visible and revealed.

All actions of the parties to the conflict, even those that at first glance seem incomprehensible, illogical or random, are in fact quite understandable, logical and far from random, if they are considered not on their own, not in isolation from each other, but within the framework of internal the logic of the conflict itself, as specific manifestations of its general mechanism.

What kind of mechanism is this? What does it look like and how does it work? The clash of opposing positions can take place in different ways, and there is no need to list specific variants of such clashes. From the point of view of the anatomy of conflict, a clash of opposing positions can take two forms:

a) hidden, implicit collision

b) an open, obvious clash of opposing positions.

The clash of opposing positions can be either hidden, implicit, or explicit, open, but cannot be both explicit and implicit, hidden and open. An obvious clash of positions in a team can, of course, be hidden from prying eyes for some time, but even then for some people - direct participants in the conflict - it will only be obvious, and for others - outsiders - only hidden.

Where does the conflict begin, from an open clash or from a hidden one? Many people think that from the open. This is not true. The hidden clash of opposing positions is called hidden, implicit, because it very often occurs unnoticed. It is not easy to notice, detect, or reveal. Therefore, it often seems to us that it does not exist or did not exist at all. But it only seems, this is one of the many illusions that accompany conflicts.

Almost any conflict - intrapersonal, interpersonal and group - begins with a hidden clash of opposing positions. If it cannot be extinguished, after some time the hidden collision turns into an open collision. In short, any conflict goes through two stages in its development. Each stage has its own name. The first stage - a hidden clash of positions is called conflict situation, the second stage - open confrontation - is called incident.

In everyday life, we sometimes confuse them, calling a conflict a conflict situation, and also calling incidents a conflict situation. A conflict situation is only part of the conflict, its first stage. Also, one should not confuse a conflict situation and an incident by calling an incident a conflict situation. This is wrong because a conflict situation and an incident are two different phases of a conflict.

During a conflict, an incident cannot occur without a conflict situation preceding it. Such incidents do not happen at all. Secondly, an incident cannot begin or occur until the conflict situation has gone through all the necessary stages of its own development and until all the necessary preconditions for the outbreak of an incident have matured within the conflict situation. Before an apple falls, it must be born and ripen. A conflict situation is a fuse, and until it burns out, an explosion will not follow. And thirdly, the conflict is manageable only as long as it is at the stage of a conflict situation. At the incident stage, the conflict is almost completely uncontrollable.

If we want to master the conflict and manage it, then our first task is to learn to detect a conflict situation before the conflict reaches the level of an incident. And to do this, you should know where the conflict situation begins and how it generally develops.

How does a conflict situation arise?

Any conflict situation develops according to the same logic. Events in any conflict situation occur in the same, strictly defined sequence. This sequence is never broken. These events can happen quickly or slowly, and they can also occur with significant interruptions. But they are connected with each other in such a way that each definite event is always followed by another, strictly defined, event and no other. This happens regardless of whether we know about it or not, whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not. This is the same natural course of events as the change of seasons.

Each step, each event, each significant change in the development of a conflict situation will be called a stage of a conflict situation. Any conflict situation in its development goes through two stages. Let's name them in the order in which they occur, replacing each other.

The first stage is the stage of the appearance of the subject (cause) of the conflict. The second situation is the stage of polarization of opinions (positions). Each subsequent stage cannot begin until the previous stage ends. A conflict situation cannot turn into an incident before it goes through these two stages.

So, the first stage of a conflict situation is where, strictly speaking, the conflict begins. And it begins with the appearance, the emergence of the subject (cause) of the conflict. There is no conflict without a reason. What is the subject of the conflict? This is something in relation to which opposing positions arise. What could be the subject of conflict? The subject of the conflict can be some social action, performed voluntarily or involuntarily, or some objective circumstance or event. For example, an order, a manager’s order, in a word, a management decision, often becomes the subject (cause) of a conflict. Why do some social actions, management decisions or circumstances become the cause of conflict, while others do not? And is it possible to accurately predict whether an event will cause conflict or not? It is possible, and sometimes it is even necessary. The fact is that the cause of a conflict can only be those events (actions, decisions, circumstances) that affect the interests of team members. And the interests of the members of the collective (group) are expressed in the psychological positions occupied by the group members. So, any event can become the subject of a conflict, that is, give rise to a conflict situation, if as a result of this event some members of the group will be faced with the need to change their psychological positions to less advantageous ones, that is, if they suffer, their interests will be directly or indirectly infringed .

What interests do group members have? They are very diverse, but they can be represented as four types.

1. Production interests. They are related to the specific activities that a person carries out in production, at an enterprise or institution, with his job responsibilities and rights, the amount of work performed, the nature and conditions of work. If, as a result of any events, these interests suffer, for example, if working conditions worsen or the volume of work increases, this may lead to conflict.

2. Social interests. They are due to the fact that each member of the group occupies a certain informal position in it. This informal position may correlate with the position held (for example, a “punchy guy” if it is a supply manager or a “bright head” if it is the head of a laboratory), or it may not depend on the position held (for example, “ringleader”, “envious”, “ everyone’s favorite”, etc.). In addition, all members of the team are connected with each other by informal relationships: someone is friends with someone, and someone can’t stand someone, someone respects someone, and despises another, and someone the third is generally indifferent. This system of social interests significantly influences the relationships of members of the team (group) with each other. If, for some reason, these interests are directly or indirectly infringed, for example, if a person who is not liked in the team receives a high position, then this can lead to conflict.

3. Personal (personal) interests. They are associated with people’s ideas about life, about good and evil, justice or injustice, and life values.

4. Financial interests. They are associated with opportunities for material support. If, as a result of some events, the financial situation of the members of the team (group) worsens, this may cause a conflict. You should pay attention to the following important circumstance. The cause of the conflict is not the fact of infringement of interests (reduction of wages, deterioration of working conditions, etc.). The cause of the conflict is actions, decisions or circumstances that led to infringement of the interests (reduction of wages, deterioration of working conditions, etc.) of some members of the team (group).

Of course, different people have different attitudes towards actions that infringe on their interests and react to them differently. Some are more relaxed about the infringement of personal interests and more sensitive to the infringement of material interests. Others, on the contrary, are less active in reactions to infringement of material interests, but more active in cases of infringement of their personal interests. But this is if we consider the reactions of each member of the team in isolation, without taking into account the actions and reactions of other members of the team. It’s one thing when we are talking about the specific reaction of one individual person to a situation when some of his interests are infringed. And it’s a completely different matter when it comes to a group.

In a collective (group) environment, people’s interests are intertwined, interdependent and interdependent. After all, the real relationships between people in a group are also intertwined, interdependent and interdependent. In any group there is always some system of correlation of interests. This is a dynamic (moving) system in which the various interests of various members of the team are in a state of relative equilibrium. This balance ensures the stability of the team itself. A system of relative stable equilibrium (correlation) of all interests of all group members develops naturally. There are laws of group development that describe how this system develops. In all cases, when the balance of interests is sharply disturbed, preconditions for conflict arise, but not always, when the balance of interests is sharply disturbed, a conflict arises. In any situation of this kind, people begin to act, and these actions are aimed not at restoring the disturbed balance of interests, but at protecting and restoring their interests, which are infringed as a result of the violation of this balance. Why does it happen that members of this group begin to act in this way? Why do they begin to strive first of all to restore their interests? Why do they, so to speak, pit their own interests against the interests of the group? The reason for this is not in the depravity of people, not in their bad manners or selfishness, not in the fact that they are accustomed to thinking first of all about themselves, and then about others. The reason for this behavior is very simple. The balance of interests in a team is a complex interweaving of all the interests of all group members. So any member of the team, even if he wanted to, cannot, in his aspirations and actions, take into account all the interests of all members of the team, and even in all their interrelations. Even in calm, non-conflict situations, any member of the team, when performing actions, never takes into account all the interests of all other members of the group. There is no need for this for him. Especially in a situation of conflict. In a group setting, when people’s interests are directly or indirectly infringed, that is, when a cause of conflict appears, people begin to act, and their actions are also intertwined. People begin to act not as separate individuals, but as members of a collective, connected in one way or another with other members of the collective. The actions of each member of the team (group) immediately affect other members of the team, also forcing them to act. Some members of the team act in such a way as to protect their disadvantaged interests. Other members of the team either support the former or act in such a way as to preserve their interests, prevent their mutual infringement and strengthen the changed situation. A very complex system of actions arises. However, in their totality, so to speak, in their sum, these actions either lead to a conflict situation or do not.

Thus, even if there is a subject (cause) of conflict, that is, a certain circumstance that infringes on the interests of part of the team, then as a result of the actions of the team members to protect their interests, a conflict situation may or may not arise. What determines whether a conflict situation will develop under these conditions or not? This depends on two circumstances. Firstly, it depends on the number of team members whose interests are, in one way or another, directly or indirectly infringed. As a result, the event that caused this infringement may give rise to conflict. The more members of a group whose interests are harmed in one way or another, the greater the likelihood that conflict will arise. Secondly, it depends on the interests that are being infringed. The more “explosive” the interests that are infringed as a result of an event, the more likely it is that this event will cause a conflict and give rise to a conflict situation.

In practice, in real life it is always very difficult to “calculate” whether this or that event will cause a conflict situation in the team or not. And this, in turn, narrows the manager’s ability to prevent conflicts. And the best way to master conflict is to prevent it.

Indeed, it seems impossible to “calculate” how the balance of all interests of all group members has changed as a result of one or another event. It seems impossible to predict who will act in this situation and how and where events will go in general. Will this event or decision not made by me cause conflict or not? Every leader has asked himself this more than once. But this is only one side of the question. It also happens that a manager acts according to Murphy’s well-known principle: “If trouble can happen, then it will definitely happen.” And, trying to avoid a possible, in his opinion, conflict, he refuses some extremely necessary for the matter, sometimes even the best decision in this situation, or is late in making it, although objectively his decision would not lead to a conflict. However, this type of situation analysis is difficult to learn.

The actions of people in a situation where the balance of interests is disturbed are subject to certain laws. They are called s law of cumulative action in conflict And law of "critical mass". Knowing these laws, you can easily determine whether an event or your decision will cause a conflict or not.

The Law of Aggregate Action states: a collective is not just a group of people, a collective is a system of collective actions that are often perceived as the actions of individual members of the collective, but, in fact, never are. We can say it another way - a collective does not consist of people, but of a system of their joint (aggregate) actions, which, in principle, are “indecomposable” into the actions of individual members of the collective. So the “psychology of a collective” is not some sum of the psychology of all its members.

nuclear physics, according to which a nuclear explosion occurs. For a nuclear explosion you need:

a) explosives (for example, uranium or plutonium);

b) a strictly defined mass of this substance, that is, the critical mass of this substance.

If the mass of a substance present somewhere does not exceed the critical mass, then this substance cannot explode. There is too little of it for physical processes and reactions leading to an explosion to begin in it. If the mass of a substance present somewhere is equal to or exceeds the critical mass, then an explosion will occur. Simply put, if we have a certain amount of explosive, then in order for it to explode, we need to add more substances to it until a critical mass is formed.

Each substance has its own critical mass. For some substances it is greater, while for others it is less. It does not change and is always the same for the same substance. One substance explodes in the presence of a few grams of the substance, while the other will not explode even in the presence of several kilograms. Therefore, the second substance has a larger critical mass. The smaller the mass of a substance at which it explodes, the more explosive it is considered. And vice versa, the more explosive a substance is, the less of it is needed for an explosion.

The law of critical mass operates in a similar way in a conflict situation. The interests of team members, one way or another affected during a conflict situation, are also more or less explosive. Here is a list of interests ranked in order of increasing explosiveness:

- production

Social

Personal

Material

The least explosive are the production interests of group members. The most explosive are the material interests of group members. However, if the production interests of some group members are infringed, a conflict may or may not arise. What does this depend on? It depends on the critical mass, that is, on the number of group members whose interests have been affected. Each of the four types of interests has its own critical mass. In this sense, interests can be compared to an explosive, and conflict to an explosion.

The critical mass for various explosives is expressed in grams or kilograms. The critical mass for different types of interests is expressed in proportions. These are the proportions on the basis of which the law of critical mass of conflict operates:

- for production interests, the critical mass is 76% of the total number of team members

- for social interests – 61.5% of all team members

- for personal interests – 38.1%

- for material interests - 23.5% of the total number of all team members.

What does this mean? A conflict occurs when, as a result of some event, the material interests of at least 23.5 percent of the group members are infringed. If, as a result of some event, the material interests of less than 23% of group members are infringed, then in this case the conflict does not occur and this event cannot be the cause of the conflict.

A conflict occurs when, as a result of some event, the personal interests of at least 38% of group members are infringed. If, as a result of some event, the personal interests of less than 38% of group members are infringed, then in this case the conflict does not occur and this event cannot be the cause of the conflict.

A conflict occurs when, as a result of some event, the social interests of at least 61.5% of group members are infringed. If, as a result of some event, the social interests of less than 61.5% of group members are infringed, then in this case the conflict does not occur and the event that caused the infringement of interests cannot be the cause of the conflict.

And finally, conflict always arises when the production interests of at least 76% of all group members suffer. In the case when the production interests of less than 76% of all team members suffer, the conflict will not occur and the event that caused this infringement of interests cannot be the cause of the conflict.

Let us repeat once again: each individual member of the team may have a different, his own hierarchy of his own interests from the point of view of their explosiveness. However, in a group where each member is in one way or another, directly or indirectly connected with all the other members, his actions in a conflict situation, as well as the actions of other group members, in their totality, in their sum, in their final result obey the law of critical mass.

The subject of the conflict, and therefore the conflict situation, appears only when:

a) an action, a management decision or some other event occurs, as a result of which the balance of interests is upset and the interests of some part of the team are infringed,

b) infringement of interests exceeds a critical mass.

Of course, in real life there is practically not a single event in the life of a group that, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, does not affect the interests of its members. Every leader knows that it is impossible to please everyone and no matter what decision he makes, there will always be dissatisfied people. All this is true. But this does not mean that we should not consider the possible consequences of our management actions or decisions. Now we can do it. We now know why not every such event leads to conflict and why. We now understand why and how some events lead to conflict and others do not. In all these cases, the law of critical mass of conflict applies. That, in fact, is all that happens at the first stage of a conflict situation - at the stage of the appearance (emergence) of the subject of the conflict.

A conflict situation cannot move to the second stage of its development if it has not passed the first stage. This is understandable: a conflict cannot develop if the subject of the conflict does not appear. Well, if he has already appeared, then the conflict situation moves to its next stage, which is called stage of polarization of opinions (positions).

How polarization of opinions occurs

As soon as the subject of the conflict appears and is determined, the conflict situation begins to develop and moves into its second stage - the stage of polarization of opinions (positions). A distinctive feature of this stage is that all the main events that determine the intensity and degree of tension of the conflict situation as a whole take place here. This is the stage when active processes begin to occur in the team. This stage is very dynamic, it is the action stage. And since the actions of the participants in the conflict at this stage are quite active, this makes it possible to see these actions, recognize their psychological meaning and thereby identify a conflict situation if it exists.

Of course, by definition, a conflict situation is a hidden clash of opposing positions. This stage of conflict is not easy to recognize. Sometimes it is so difficult that the illusion may arise that it does not exist at all or never existed and that the conflict immediately began with an incident, that is, with an open (explicit) clash of opposing positions. However, if we know exactly what processes and what actions of participants always occur at this stage of a conflict situation, then, having seen these processes or actions in life, we can easily recognize that there is a conflict situation in the team (group). . It will cease to be hidden for us, while remaining hidden for others, even for many participants in the conflict. The fact is that these processes and these actions occur in a team only when there is a conflict situation. They cannot occur in any other conditions or situations other than in a conflict situation. A conflict situation can develop only through these processes and actions and not through any others.

What are these processes and what are these actions? Let’s assume that something happened in the team that upset the balance of interests, and as a result, a conflict situation arose. Naturally, this event causes certain reactions, opinions, judgments and assessments on the part of team members. Each member of the team expresses their attitude to this event in one way or another. This event is discussed in the team in one form or another. However, these opinions, judgments and assessments are not an expression of the attitude of team members to the conflict. These various opinions, judgments and assessments express the attitude of team members to the event that gave rise to the conflict situation, that is, to the subject of the conflict. These are not reactions to a situation, these are reactions to the event that gave rise to this situation. The situation itself is often not perceived by members of the team (group) as a conflict at all.

The range of these individual opinions, judgments, assessments, which express the attitude of team members to the subject of the conflict, is extremely wide. These opinions may or may not be expressed or discussed. The opinions of some team members may completely or partially coincide, but for some team members they may be diametrically opposed. Some people are satisfied with the changed situation; for example, it suits those members of the team whose interests not only were not harmed, but, on the contrary, strengthened. Some are ready to accept the infringement of their interests, but others are not. There are also those who even declare that everything that happened does not interest them and does not concern them. These are those members of the team whose interests have not been strengthened, but have not suffered, or have strengthened or suffered only slightly. But, one way or another, every member of the team finds himself drawn into the conflict, even those whose interests were not harmed. Why? A position of indifference is also a position, and in it, like in all other positions, a certain attitude towards the subject of the conflict is also expressed. And since a person has a position, an attitude expressed in the form of an opinion, then he is already a participant in the conflict. He is a participant in the conflict even when he does not express his opinion. He is a participant in the conflict even when no one asks him for his opinion. He is a participant in the conflict, even if, in his opinion, the subject of the conflict does not concern him. Therefore, it would be a mistake to think that there are people in the team who will remain aloof from the conflict. This is another illusion that makes it difficult to understand the essence of the matter and can push us to take wrong actions if we want to master the situation and successfully resolve the conflict. Of course, the degree of involvement in the conflict varies among its different participants. Some are drawn into the conflict to a greater extent, and others to a lesser extent. Some want to restore their infringed interests, others resist this, and still others join either the first or the second, trying to strengthen their positions or prevent the infringement of their own interests.

So, some time after the appearance of the subject of conflict, a spectrum of opinions is formed in relation to this subject. There is a kind of “drawing” of people into the conflict. The opinions (positions) of team members are very diverse and very often subjective. It is absolutely impossible to identify all the opinions of all members of the team in relation to the subject of the conflict: some members of the team prefer not to express their opinions at all, and their opinion remains unknown until the last moment.

However, in a group setting, where people’s interests do not exist independently of each other, but are intertwined, all opinions are always distributed relative to each other. They are always distributed relative to each other in a strictly defined way. Therefore, there is no need to discuss any specific opinions of team members. No matter how diverse and illogical they may be, in their totality, as a whole, they are always distributed in the same, strictly defined way. Why does this happen and how are the opinions of members of the team (group) generally distributed in relation to the subject of the conflict?

The fact is that in a conflict situation, certain interests of a larger or smaller part of the team members are infringed:

a) interests may be infringed significantly or insignificantly;

b) interests may be infringed directly or indirectly.

For example, a salary reduction is a direct infringement of the employee’s material interests. Raising the salary of a team member holding a position is a direct support for his interests, but indirectly infringes on the interests of other employees holding the same position. At the same time, this is an indirect infringement of the interests of those who, for some reason, have a negative attitude towards this employee. Direct infringement of the interests of some people is at the same time direct and indirect support of the interests of others. Direct support for the interests of some people is simultaneously a direct and indirect infringement of the interests of other people. And since infringement of interests can be direct or indirect (mediated), then the opinions of team members that appear as a result of the action of the subject of the conflict can be direct and indirect. Let's look at “direct” opinions first.

Direct opinions are called direct not because they are always expressed directly, so to speak, “in your face.” They, of course, can speak out directly and openly, but they may not speak out. In fact, direct opinions are called direct because they directly, directly follow from the subject of the conflict. These are opinions in relation to the subject of the conflict; they are directly related to the subject of the conflict. In whatever form they express themselves, openly (directly) or veiled, they always remain direct opinions.

How do direct opinions appear? For example, as a result of some management decision of the leader, the interests of part of the team were directly affected, and this exceeded the “critical mass”. The conflict, as they say, has “started.” At the same time, the interests of some members of the team suffered to a significant extent, while others suffered only slightly. What follows from this? Those members of the team whose interests have suffered to a significant extent develop a negative attitude towards this decision. They don't like it. They perceive this decision as unfair to themselves. They express their direct disagreement with this decision. They can express this direct disagreement directly, openly or veiled, calmly or emotionally, reasoned or unreasoned. But in any case, this will be direct disagreement. At the same time, direct infringement of the interests of some members of the team is direct support for the interests of other members of the team. And they, having received the opportunity to realize their interests, perceive this management decision positively. Their opinion is the opinion of direct agreement with this decision. It may or may not be expressed. It can be expressed directly or covertly. It may or may not be argued. But in any case, this will be direct consent.

But there are also those members of the team whose interests are infringed to a lesser extent. They also form a certain opinion. Their interests are directly infringed. And therefore their opinion is an opinion of direct disagreement. But their interests are slightly infringed, and therefore their opinion only partially coincides with the opinion of direct disagreement. This opinion can be called an opinion of direct partial disagreement. It is clear that the opinion of those whose interests are directly supported, but supported to a small extent, is called direct partial agreement. Thus, we have four direct opinions (positions):

- express full consent

- outright complete disagreement

- express partial consent

- direct partial disagreement

Moreover, the opinions of direct partial agreement and direct partial disagreement are never opposite to each other. Why? Firstly, because partial agreement can be at the same time partial disagreement. These two opinions may be two sides of the same coin, one opinion belonging to one person. I may agree that the situation in the team is bad, but I may not agree with the measures that the boss is taking to improve this situation. Secondly, if these opinions belong to different people, this means that one person has some of his interests affected, and another has others. So in this case, the opinions of direct partial agreement and direct partial disagreement are not opposite. They are never opposites. On the contrary, they complement each other.

So we have four types of direct opinions. However, the entire range of positions is not limited to them. Direct infringement of the interests of some people is indirect support of the interests of others. They also develop certain opinions. These opinions are called indirect. Why? Support or infringement of interests here occurs not directly, but indirectly, through direct infringement of the interests of other people. In this case, indirect opinions can be expressed directly, or they can be expressed in a veiled manner. They may not speak out at all. However, they will always be indirect opinions. Thus, as a result of the development of a conflict situation, two more types of opinions appear:

- indirect consent

- indirect disagreement.

And finally, the last type of opinion. Direct infringement of the interests of some is an indirect infringement of the interests of others. And direct support for the interests of some is indirect support for the interests of others. From this combination another type of opinion can easily be deduced, namely:

- indirect partial consent

So, the internal mechanism for the unfolding of any conflict leads to the formation of the following groups of opinions (positions) in the team.

The first group of opinions includes:

- express full consent

- express partial consent

- indirect full consent

- indirect partial consent.

This group of opinions is called a consensus group of opinions.

The second group of opinions, which is called the group of disagreement opinions, includes:

- outright complete disagreement

- direct partial disagreement

- indirect complete disagreement

- indirect partial disagreement.

For simplicity of presentation, we can denote the first group of opinions by the letter A, and the second by the letter B. Any opinion of any member of the team in a conflict situation can be attributed to either group A or group B. Thus, as the conflict situation unfolds, all existing opinions are gradually pulled together into groups A and B. In each group of opinions, main opinions are identified (this is the opinion of direct complete agreement and the opinion of direct complete disagreement) and additional ones (these are all other opinions). In this case, only the main opinions are opposite, and additional opinions are not opposite. And since opinions do not exist on their own, since opinions are the opinions of people, it turns out that as a result of the development of a conflict situation, the members of the team are divided into groups. Some members of the team, directly or indirectly, fully or partially, begin to support the main opinion (position) of group A. Another part of the team, directly or indirectly, fully or partially, begins to support the main opinion (position) of group B. This is exactly how the process that gave The name of this second stage of development of a conflict situation is the process of polarization of opinions (positions).

In real life, it is very difficult to monitor how this process develops. After all, opinions are discussed and clarified not always in the presence of the leader. There's nothing wrong with that. For an accurate analysis of the situation, it is enough for you to know that at this stage of the conflict situation there is a polarization of opinions, and all the opinions of all members of the team, regardless of whether they are expressed or not, fall into either group A or group B. You should not be embarrassed, that not all opinions are expressed and discussed openly. The fact that some members of the team prefer not to express their opinions at all, not to “open” their cards, is quite normal. It is important that in any case, some opinions are still expressed one way or another. This is quite enough for you.

You will be able to accurately calculate the situation, even if you only know some opinions. Basic and additional opinions do not exist without each other and independently of each other. If there are basic opinions, then there are certainly additional ones. If there are additional opinions, then there are certainly main ones. It doesn't matter whether they speak out or not. Something else is important. If there are people in your team who express additional opinions, this means that there are definitely people who have the main opinion. They may not express it, but they are there. They simply cannot fail to exist. In the same way, if there are people expressing the main opinion, then they are never without support. Because there are always people who have an additional opinion. They may not express it, but they are always there. They cannot but exist. This is the result of the objective law of conflict development.

In short, in order to determine whether the conflict situation in the case you are interested in has moved to the stage of polarization of opinions, you just need to analyze the opinions that are currently being expressed and classify them as group A or group B. Based on some opinions, you can judge the situation as a whole. After all, in order to know that an apple is sour, it is not at all necessary to eat it whole. Just try a piece of this apple. But if you decide to act, that is, to master the conflict and effectively resolve it, this is not enough for you. You need to identify opposing positions and their carriers. And this can be done if you are aware of another process that occurs simultaneously with the polarization of opinions. It's called role distribution. This process is very important. Without analyzing this process, the analysis of the conflict situation will be incomplete.

A role in a conflict is the totality of actions of each individual participant in the conflict, performed in a certain sequence. The process of distribution of roles goes in parallel with the process of polarization of opinions. These processes are interdependent. It can be said that the polarization of opinions cannot be considered complete until the process of distribution of roles is completed. The distribution of roles in a conflict is an objective and natural process. This happens in a completely different way than, for example, the distribution of roles between actors in the theater. During conflict, people typically do not agree in advance who will play what role.

It is necessary to distinguish between social roles and roles in conflict. For example, a leader, despite this social role, finding himself drawn into a conflict, begins to act in accordance with his role in the conflict. In this case, any of his actions, even those that are objectively aimed at mastering the conflict or eliminating it, are perceived by other participants in the conflict not as the actions of the leader, but as the actions of a participant in the conflict.

Roles in a conflict depend on the positions (opinions) of one or another member of the team in relation to the subject of the conflict. Roles in a conflict can be active or passive. The development of the conflict, its intensity and severity are determined primarily by those members of the team who play active roles in it. It is thanks to their active actions that the conflict reaches the level of an incident. Therefore, for a correct analysis of the situation and for timely effective actions to master the conflict, one should, first of all, know what active roles in a conflict are and what actions are always carried out by the people playing them.

The actions of people playing passive roles in a conflict situation do not have a significant impact on its development. However, during the course of an incident, that is, at the stage of an open clash of positions, these roles become active.

Active roles in the conflict at the stage of the conflict situation are played by members of the team, whose opinions are the main ones in both group A and group B. So the active roles in the conflict situation can be called the main roles. The main roles in a conflict situation are the roles of leader and initiator. Let's consider each of them separately.

During the development of a conflict situation, team members strive to find out the opinions of other team members in relation to the subject of the conflict and correlate them with their opinions - an active process of clarifying points of view occurs. At the same time, it is quite natural that some members of the team, expressing their opinions, are inclined to one degree or another to the main position of group A, while the other part of the team is inclined to the main position of group B. During this process, some members of the team act more actively, and some – less active. Those members of the team whose position directly (direct full agreement) or indirectly (mediated full agreement) coincides with the main position of group A, in order to assert their position and thereby restore infringed interests, look for supporters of their position. In turn, those members of the team whose positions directly or indirectly coincide with the main position of group B are also looking for supporters. Here we are dealing with action law of search for support. In a situation of conflict, this law operates in a specific way.

In a situation of conflict at the stage of a conflict situation, the ones most in need of support are the carriers of the main position in both group A and group B. The carriers of the main position, that is, those whose positions directly or indirectly coincide with it, seek support or find support, or they don't find it. They find support from the bearers of additional positions of group A and do not find support from the bearers of the main and additional positions of group B. True, in some situations they may find partial support from some bearers of additional positions of group B: after all, there is partial disagreement, on the other hand, partial agreement, so that some participants from group B have objective prerequisites for supporting group A. However, this does not change the overall picture. In any case, the carriers of the main position of group A will never provide support to the carriers of the main position of group B. These positions will inevitably come into conflict, and this collision itself, still implicit, hidden, is the essence of the conflict situation.

The carriers of the main position of group B act in exactly the same way. They:

a) seek support from holders of additional positions of group B and, as a rule, receive it;

b) seek support from holders of additional positions of group A and, as a rule, do not receive it.

The question arises: why seek support from those whose positions belong to the opposite group? Firstly, because all additional positions (in both group A and group B) are not opposite to each other and are not opposite to the main positions. Their partiality and indirectness make it possible for them to gradually converge with the main positions of the opposite group.

If, for example, a team member partially agrees with the manager’s decision that caused a conflict situation, this means that he partially disagrees with this decision. And if so, then he can support both those who completely agree with this decision and those who completely disagree with it.

Secondly, it often happens that the bearer of the main position, seeking support, does not know the person’s position in advance and cannot judge which group (one’s own or the opposite) it belongs to. Here he acts at his own peril and risk, hoping to receive support if successful.

The important thing is that in all cases, looking for support and finding it or not finding it, the holders of the main positions in both groups act actively and open their positions to other members of the team. Without this, it is impossible to find support. In short, the holders of the main positions in both group A and group B actively seek support from team members, revealing their positions to them. The more active the actions of the carriers of the main position of group A, the more active the actions of the carriers of the main position of group B. They confront each other with the need to act as actively as possible.

However, not all holders of the main positions in both groups are able to act as actively as possible. And as a result of this, in both groups, people stand out who most actively and consistently “recruit” supporters for themselves. These are the leaders.

Thus, the leader is the most active and consistent bearer of the main position. The actions of a leader during a conflict situation are the actions of recruiting supporters. At the same time, we do not attach any negative meaning to the term “recruitment”. The leader simply shows himself by recruiting followers. Therefore, a leader is quite easy to recognize and detect. The leader in a conflict is not the one who started it first, nor the one who shouts the loudest. A leader is someone who quietly but actively recruits supporters or, if you like, seeks support for his position.

Here we should warn against another, very common illusion. The fact is that, as follows from the described mechanism for the development of a conflict situation, roles and positions are always distributed in such a way that there are always two leaders in a conflict. Sometimes, especially at the stage of an incident, it may seem that one “party” of participants in the conflict has a leader, while the other does not. But this is just an illusion. If there are two opposing positions and there is a clash between them, then this means that there are two leaders. Until you identify both leaders, your analysis of the conflict situation cannot be considered complete.

The second active and important role is the role of the initiator. The initiator is the participant in the conflict who, through his actions, “triggers” the incident. It may seem that these parties to the conflict “work” mainly during the incident phase. But it is not so. Let's look at how initiators appear and act. A conflict situation, developing according to its internal mechanisms, inevitably leads to an incident. There comes a time when the hidden clash of opposing positions becomes open. If the conflict was not managed at the stage of the conflict situation, then an incident inevitably occurs. In this case, the conflict becomes unmanageable.

However, an incident cannot occur until the conflict situation has passed through both stages of its development. It cannot happen under any circumstances. It will not happen even when someone wants or tries to provoke it. And there are always such team members. During the second stage of the conflict situation, some members of the team are identified who are interested in the conflict moving to the level of an open clash of positions. They try to take advantage of any opportunity to openly confront opposing positions. For example, they can take advantage of any situation when all members of the team or the majority of them gather together - at a teachers' council, production meeting, meeting, etc. Sometimes they may even organize a meeting specifically to discuss the situation that has developed in the team as a result of some event that caused the conflict. Such team members are very easy to recognize. The fact is that although they, just like all other members of the team, act to protect or restore their interests, in their speeches at meetings they prefer to talk either about general injustice or to defend the interests of other members of the team. In their speeches they very often use phrases like:

- As a result, the entire team suffered!

- Not all members of our team will agree with...

- I cannot agree with this decision, because those members of the team who...

But until the development of the conflict situation is completed, the incident cannot occur. Therefore, provocations of this kind, even if they occur, do not change anything essentially. A conflict situation only changes its form, while remaining a conflict situation.

Another thing is a provocation at a time when the conflict situation has already matured, when positions have already emerged and polarized, and the main roles have been distributed. In this case, team members interested in an acute open clash of positions achieve their goal. As a result of their actions, an incident occurs. Those members of the team, those participants in the conflict who provoke the incident so that it occurs are called initiators.

One should not think that the initiators act with malicious intent. We do not attach any negative meaning to the word “initiator,” as well as to the word “provokes.” These are simply those members of the team, those participants in the conflict who, for various reasons, do not see any other opportunities to protect their interests, except through an open clash of positions. They not only act actively themselves, but also encourage others to take active action.

As can be seen from the presented analysis, both leaders and initiators act very actively during a conflict situation. Leaders find out the positions of team members and seek support, while initiators provoke a sharp clash of positions by supporting one of them. Leaders reveal their position, initiators hide their position by joining the position of others, therefore, the same person cannot be both a leader and an initiator. These are different roles and these are different people. And they act simultaneously and, often, in concert. And they should not be confused. We sometimes think that the one who provokes the incident is the leader, but this is not true. In the final scene of Othello, the same actor cannot play both the Moor and Desdemona. You may not know the name of the actor playing Othello, but you will know for sure that it is not the same actor who plays Iago or Desdemona. You may not know who the leader is in the conflict, but one thing you can know for sure is that he is not among the initiators.

Let's summarize. In different teams, conflict situations occur in different ways. However, no matter how different they may be from each other in appearance, they are based on a single mechanism. It is possible that the description of this mechanism will seem overly detailed and complex. It may seem that conflict analysis will take too much of your time. Understanding this, we summarize all of the above in the form of instructions for analyzing a conflict situation. If, while following the instructions, you encounter difficulties, then re-read this section again with a pencil in your hands.

How to analyze a conflict situation

1. Is there a conflict situation in your team in the case you are interested in or not. It exists if some event disrupts the “critical mass” of the conflict. A conflict situation appears if and only if:

Now, based on the analysis, you can act quite accurately and effectively.

Opponent Features:

1.Positions in the conflict- denote those opinions and behavior, the view of the situation that the parties to the conflict demonstrate to each other and other participants in the conflict.

Interests are what we want to achieve in a conflict situation. Behind interests are needs, the satisfaction of which we demand. During periods of stability, good relationships and a high degree of trust, our actions and actions are based on basic needs. We can communicate these needs to others if we trust them and discuss them openly. More often than not, those around us guess our needs themselves. In a situation of mistrust, we will prefer to hide our basic needs - to speak about them means to become vulnerable. Therefore, in situations of conflict and instability, people demonstrate public or abstract interests. When these interests are attacked, people take positions to defend them - which move them further away from the original need.

Rice. 1 “Onion” conflict analysis method

For Irina:

· Needs: recognition and acceptance; the situation is similar to Irina’s relationships in her family - the desire to please in order to receive love. Without paying attention to criticism (obedience and diligence were encouraged in the family, criticism was often used if the child did not meet expectations).

· Interests: desire to work, get comfortable in a new place, please your boss and team.

· Position: I will try to work even better to please my director. The critical colleague is simply not used to me, perhaps she has a bad character, but over time we will somehow find a common language.

For Tatyana:

· Needs: respect and recognition; The employee has been working for this company for a very long time and has many responsibilities. As a sign of respect from her superiors, she wanted to receive either a salary increase (which she did not directly tell anyone about) or an assistant who would respect her authority and take on part of her responsibilities (and would perform them exactly the same way as she did).

· Interests: the desire to “survive” the new girl from work, due to the fact that she does not recognize my authority. Which means she is here to “move” me.

· Position: I criticize her because she doesn't work well.

2 - Forces (potential)– the possibility and ability of the parties to the conflict to realize their goals despite the opposition of the opponent; the entire set of potential and actual means and resources of the party to the conflict.

Irina's powers: demonstration of diligence, diligence, interest in work, and a friendly attitude towards others. Showing activity. Discipline.

Tatiana's powers: strong relationships with other employees of the organization; location and trust on the part of the director; increased criticism of the behavior and work style of your colleague.

Intentions for using your “power”:

· For Irina, this is a desire to win the trust of her superiors and get used to the team. She feels like she's not working effectively, but it's only a matter of time until she learns and masters everything. She tries to compensate for her “ineffectiveness” with diligence and friendliness.

· For Tatyana - the desire to create a negative image of a new employee in the eyes of the staff (spreading gossip) and the director (complaining about the ineffective work of a colleague); weakening your opponent’s self-confidence (through criticism)

Preferred style (strategy) of behavior:

· Irina’s style is avoidance (withdrawal) – efforts are aimed at avoiding discussion of conflicting issues, postponing making a difficult decision “for later”.

· Tatyana's style is confrontation (competition, rivalry, dominance, suppression) - active behavior aimed at satisfying one's own interests, while to the detriment of the interests of the other party.

Tactics used in the conflict:

Tactics – it is a set of techniques for influencing an opponent, a means of implementing a strategy.

Irina's tactics - friendliness: includes correct address, emphasizing the general, apologizing.

Basic tactical actions: avoids the use of force; denies the seriousness and severity of the conflict; sometimes - indulgence of the enemy.

Tatyana's tactics:

· tactics of psychological violence (damage): actions aimed at undermining a person’s self-esteem and self-esteem (for example, constant criticism, belittling a person’s abilities).

· tactics of coalitions, the purpose of which is to strengthen their rank in the conflict. It is expressed in the formation of unions (uniting employees around themselves) and increasing the support group (at the expense of the manager).

Basic tactical actions: tightly controls the enemy’s actions; constantly and deliberately puts pressure on the enemy; uses cunning to try to gain control.

Presence of indirect participants in the conflict:

· boss: first as Tatyana’s support group, then as an arbitrator. That is, first he supports one of the parties, then helps resolve the conflict.

· organization staff: as Tatiana’s support group.

Their features: the boss and staff of the organization influence the new employee, putting psychological pressure on her due to their alienation and mistrust. It would be possible to transfer them to the main participants; colleagues and the boss could take the side of the newcomer if they knew her true interest and need.

Goals of the parties (explicit and hidden):

Since the conflict proceeded in a hidden form, the positions of the opponents did not reveal their goals in any way. In other words, the goals are not presented explicitly.

Hidden goals are expressed in the interests of each party:

· Tatyana's goals: the desire to get comfortable at work, despite pressure from a senior colleague.

· Tatyana's goals: the desire to fire a junior employee.

Object of conflict: location of the team / management

The object of the conflict is a specific material (resource), social (power), spiritual (idea, principle, norm) value, the possession of which both opponents simultaneously strive to possess.

In our case, we can say that the parties to the conflict share social value.

Subject of the conflict: Irina’s disobedience to all the demands made by Tatyana.

The subject of the conflict is an objectively existing or imaginary problem underlying the conflict; a contradiction that causes parties to come into conflict.