Social conflict. Social conflict: structure and examples Further development of the theory

In the most general form, the subjective causes of any organizational conflicts associated with people, their consciousness and behavior, as a rule, are caused by three factors:

1. interdependence and incompatibility of the parties’ goals;
2. awareness of this;
3. the desire of each side to realize its goals at the expense of the opponent.

1. Resource distribution. In almost any organization, resources are always limited, so the task of management is the rational distribution of materials, people and money between various departments and groups. Since people tend to strive to maximize resources and overestimate the importance of their work, the distribution of resources almost inevitably leads to various kinds of conflicts.

2. Task interdependence. The possibility of conflict exists wherever one person (group) depends on another person (group) to perform its functions. Due to the fact that any organization is a system consisting of a number of interdependent elements - departments or people, if one of them is not performing adequately, as well as if there is insufficient coordination of their activities, the interdependence of tasks can become a cause of conflict.

3. Differences in goals. The possibility of conflict increases with the complexity of organizations, their further structural division and associated autonomy. As a result, individual specialized units (groups) begin to largely independently formulate their goals, which may diverge significantly from the goals of the entire organization. In the practical implementation of autonomous (group) goals, this leads to conflicts.

4. Differences in ideas and values. Different ideas, interests and desires of people influence their assessment of the situation, leading to a biased perception of it and an appropriate reaction to it. This gives rise to contradictions and conflicts.

5. Differences in behavior and life experiences. Differences in life experience, education, length of service, age, value orientations, social characteristics, and even just habits hinder mutual understanding and cooperation between people and increase the possibility of conflict.

6. Poor communications. Lack, distortion, and sometimes excess of information can serve as a cause, consequence and catalyst for conflict. In the latter case, poor communications intensify the conflict, preventing its participants from understanding each other and the situation as a whole.

This classification of the causes of conflict can be used in its practical diagnosis, but in general it is quite abstract. A more specific classification of the causes of the conflict is proposed by R. Dahrendorf. Using and supplementing it, we can distinguish the following types of causes of social conflicts:

1. Personal reasons (“personal friction”). These include individual traits, likes and dislikes, psychological and ideological incompatibility, differences in education and life experience, etc.

2. Structural reasons. They manifest themselves in imperfection:

• communication structure: absence, distortion or contradictory information, weak contacts between management and ordinary employees, distrust and inconsistency of actions between them due to imperfections or breakdowns in communications, etc.;
• role structure: inconsistency of job descriptions, various formal requirements for an employee, official requirements and personal goals, etc.;
• technical structure: unequal equipment of different departments with equipment, exhausting pace of work, etc.;
• organizational structure: disproportionality of various departments that disrupts the general rhythm of work, duplication of their activities, lack of effective control and responsibility, conflicting aspirations of formal and informal groups in the organization, etc.;
• power structures: disproportionality of rights and duties, competencies and responsibilities, as well as the distribution of power in general, including formal and informal leadership and the struggle for it.

4. Conditions and nature of work. Harmful or dangerous working conditions, unhealthy environmental environment, poor relationships in the team and with management, dissatisfaction with the content of work, etc. — all this also creates fertile ground for conflicts to arise.

5. Distribution relations. Remuneration in the form of wages, bonuses, rewards, social privileges, etc. not only serves as a means of satisfying the various needs of people, but is also perceived as an indicator of social prestige and recognition from management. The cause of the conflict may be not so much the absolute amount of payment as the distribution relations in the team, assessed by employees from the point of view of their fairness.

6. Differences in identification. They manifest themselves in the tendency of employees to identify themselves mainly with their group (unit) and exaggerate their importance and merits, while underestimating the importance of others and forgetting about the overall goals of the organization. This kind of inclination is based on the intensity and emotional coloring of communications in primary groups, the relatively high personal significance of such groups and the issues resolved in them, group interests and group egoism. Reasons of this type often determine conflicts between various departments, as well as between individual teams and the center, the leadership of the organization.

7. The organization’s desire to expand and increase its significance. This trend is reflected by the famous Parkinson's law, according to which every organization strives to expand its staff, resources and influence, regardless of the volume of work performed. The trend towards expansion is based on the interest of each department, and above all actual and potential managers, in obtaining new, including higher and more prestigious positions, resources, power, and authority. On the way to realizing the expansion trend, there are usually similar or restraining positions of other departments and management (center), which tries to limit aspirations and retain power, control functions and resources of the organization primarily within itself. As a result of this kind of relationship, conflicts arise.

8. Difference in starting positions. This may be a different level of education, qualifications and values ​​of personnel, and unequal working conditions and material and technical equipment, etc. various departments. Such reasons lead to misunderstanding, ambiguous perception of tasks and responsibilities, uncoordinated activities of interdependent departments and, ultimately, to conflicts.

The last three reasons characterize mainly interorganizational conflicts. In real life, conflicts are often generated not by one, but by several reasons, each of which in turn changes depending on the specific situation. However, this does not eliminate the need to know the causes and sources of conflicts in order to use and manage them constructively.

The causes of conflicts largely determine the nature of their consequences.

Negative consequences of conflict

There are two directions for assessing the consequences of conflicts: functionalist(integration) and sociological(dialectical). The first of them, which is represented, for example, by the famous American experimental scientist E. Mayo. He views conflict as a dysfunctional phenomenon that disrupts the normal existence of an organization and reduces the effectiveness of its activities. The functionalist direction focuses on the negative consequences of conflict. Summarizing the work of various representatives of this direction, we can highlight the following: negative consequences of conflicts:

• destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, decreased controllability;
• distracting staff from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
• dissatisfaction of conflict participants with their stay in the organization, increased frustration, depression, stress, etc. and, as a consequence, a decrease in labor productivity, an increase in staff turnover;
• increasing emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of management and others;
• weakening of communication and cooperation opportunities with opponents in the future;
• distracting conflict participants from solving the organization’s problems and a fruitless waste of their strength, energy, resources and time fighting each other.

In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) consider them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results for the organization:

• initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization there are always certain people, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
• articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the pressing problem more clearly and creates favorable conditions for solving it;
• mobilization of attention, interest and resources to solve problems and, as a result, saving the organization’s working time and resources. Very often, pressing issues, especially those that concern the entire organization, are not resolved until a conflict arises, since in conflict-free, “normal” functioning, out of respect for organizational norms and traditions, as well as out of a sense of politeness, managers and employees often bypass thorny issues;
• creating a sense of belonging among the conflict participants to the decision made as a result, which facilitates its implementation;
• stimulating more thoughtful and informed action in order to prove that you are right;
• encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions, eliminating the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other’s interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
• developing the ability of conflict participants to cooperate in the future, when the conflict is resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Fair competition that leads to consensus increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
• release of psychological tension in relations between people, a clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
• overcoming traditions of groupthink, conformism, “submissiveness syndrome” and the development of free-thinking, individuality of the employee. As a result of this, the staff’s ability to develop original ideas and find optimal ways to solve the organization’s problems increases;
• involving the usually passive part of employees in solving organizational problems. This contributes to the personal development of employees and serves the goals of the organization;
• identification of informal groups and their leaders and smaller groups, which can be used by the manager to improve management efficiency;
• development of skills and abilities among conflict participants relatively painless solution to future problems;
• strengthening group cohesion in case of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, the easiest way to unite a group and muffle or even overcome internal discord is to find a common enemy, a competitor. External conflict is capable of extinguishing internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose relevance, severity and are forgotten.

Based on an assessment of the consequences of conflicts, a strategy for dealing with them in the organization is built.

Depending on how effective conflict management is, its consequences will become functional or dysfunctional, which, in turn, will affect the possibility of future conflicts: it will eliminate the causes of conflicts or create them.

The following main ones are distinguished functional (positive) consequences of conflicts for the organization:

1) the problem is solved in a way that suits all parties, and as a result people feel involved in solving a problem that is important to them;

2) a jointly made decision is implemented faster and better;

3) the parties gain experience in cooperation in resolving controversial issues and can use it in the future;

4) effective resolution of conflicts between the manager and subordinates destroys the so-called “submission syndrome” - the fear of openly expressing one’s opinion that differs from the opinion of one’s seniors;

5) relationships between people improve;

6) people stop considering the presence of disagreements as an “evil” that always leads to bad consequences.

The main dysfunctional (negative) consequences of conflicts:

1) unproductive, competitive relationships between people;

2) lack of desire for cooperation and good relations;

3) the idea of ​​the opposite side as an “enemy”, of one’s position as exclusively positive, and of the opponent’s position as only negative. And people who believe that they alone possess the truth are dangerous;

4) curtailment or complete cessation of interaction with the opposite party, preventing the solution of production problems.

5) the belief that “winning” a conflict is more important than solving the real problem;

6) feelings of resentment, dissatisfaction, bad mood, staff turnover.

Of course, both negative and positive consequences of conflicts cannot be absolutized and considered outside of a specific situation. The real ratio of functional and dysfunctional consequences of a conflict directly depends on their nature, the causes that give rise to them, as well as on skillful conflict management.

4. Handling conflicts.

4.1. The leader's attitude towards conflict.

There are four types of manager's attitude towards a conflict situation.

1. The desire to avoid trouble, suffering. The elder behaves as if nothing happened. He does not notice the conflict, avoids resolving the issue, lets what happened take its course, does not disturb the apparent well-being, and does not complicate his own life. His moral immaturity often ends in disaster. Violations of discipline are growing like a snowball. More and more people are being drawn into the conflict. Unresolved disputes destroy the team and provoke its members to even more serious violations of discipline.

2. Realistic attitude to reality. The manager is patient and sober about what is happening. He adapts to the conflicting demands. In other words, he follows their lead, trying to soften conflictual relationships with persuasion and exhortations. He behaves in such a way that, on the one hand, he does not disturb the team and the administration, and on the other hand, he does not spoil relationships with people. But persuasion and concessions lead to the fact that the elder is no longer respected and is laughed at.

3. Active attitude to what happened. The manager recognizes the existence of a critical situation and does not hide the conflict from superiors and colleagues. He does not ignore what happened and does not try to please “both ours and yours,” but acts in accordance with his own moral principles and beliefs, ignoring the individual personality traits of conflicting subordinates, the situation in the team, and the causes of the conflict. As a result, a situation of external well-being develops, the cessation of quarrels, and violations of discipline. But at the same time, the lives of team members are often crippled, their destinies are broken, and a lasting hostility is caused towards the boss and the team, and sometimes towards the organization as a whole.

4. Creative approach to conflict. The elder behaves in accordance with the situation and resolves the conflict with minimal losses. In this case, he consciously and purposefully, taking into account all the accompanying phenomena, finds a way out of the conflict situation. He takes into account the objective and subjective causes of the conflict, for example, not knowing the motive for one employee to insult another, he does not make a hasty decision.

A creative attitude and a thorough analysis of what happened are especially necessary when accepting criticism. If the critic seeks to increase work efficiency, correct shortcomings that interfere with full-fledged work, social work, it is necessary to record valuable advice, try to correct omissions, and in his free time, when the speaker has cooled down, if there was a need, criticize him for tactlessness, explain what criticism should be , and be sure to praise for a serious attitude to work, for the desire to correct shortcomings.

If the critic is settling personal scores or trying to present himself or show his integrity, it is best to try to enlist the support of those present and avoid further contact with the speaker. It is useless to explain anything in this case. It is better to calmly explain to those present the reason for the critic’s indignation, to show what caused the desire to “boldly” speak out against the gaps in the work.

Particularly unpleasant forms of criticism are performance in order to increase one’s status in a team and criticism in order to receive an emotional charge. In both cases, the person in conflict is not at all interested in the matter. The reason is frankly selfish motives or a love of squabbling, the joy of emotional release, the need for it. In both situations, you must not succumb to emotional influence or become a target for the critic. If possible, you should leave the room; if not, calmly, with dignity, talk with the team on an interesting topic or do some business, in no case showing contempt for the critic, without further stimulating his emotional intensity.

These forms of criticism are rarely found in their pure form and are not always used consciously and intentionally. Therefore, they are difficult to recognize and interpret correctly. However, having understood their reasons, it is easier to determine the goal of the critic and outline tactics for preventing a quarrel and getting out of a conflict situation.

The manager’s indifferent attitude to events in the team and a passive reaction to seemingly insignificant friction among employees often cause persistent, uncontrollable conflicts. Therefore, it is advisable not to bring matters to serious clashes, not to wait for good relations to improve on their own. It is necessary, by setting a specific goal for a subordinate, organizing his activities aimed at achieving this goal, cultivating camaraderie and friendship in the team, increasing the cohesion of its members, making the team resistant to disagreements and conflicts.

If this cannot be done, a conflict has arisen, it is necessary to eliminate it with the least losses for the participants, the team, and the manager himself.

Among the basic concepts that social science studies today, social conflicts occupy a large place. Largely because they are an active driving force, thanks to which modern society has come to its present state. So what is social conflict?

This is a clash between different parts of society, caused by the contradictions that have arisen. Moreover, it cannot be said that social conflict always leads to negative consequences, because it does not. Constructive overcoming and resolution of such contradictions allows the parties to get closer, learn something, and society to develop. But only if both sides are committed to a rational approach and to searching for a way out.

The concept of conflict in society interested researchers long before sociology as such appeared at all. The English philosopher Hobbes was quite negative about this. He pointed out that some kind of conflicts would constantly occur within society; the natural state, in his opinion, became a “war of all against all.”

But not everyone agreed with him. Issues of collisions at the end of the 19th century were actively studied by Spencer. He believed that we were talking about a natural process, as a result of which the best, as a rule, remain. Considering social conflicts and ways to resolve them, the thinker brought personality to the fore.

In contrast, Karl Marx believed that the choice of the group is more important for society as a whole. The scientist suggested that class struggle is inevitable. For him, the functions of social conflict are closely related to the redistribution of goods. However, critics of this researcher’s theory pointed out that Marx was an economist. And he approached the study of society from the point of view of professional deformation, paying too little attention to everything else. Moreover, here the importance of an individual person turned out to be belittled.

If we talk about the basic concepts relating to modern conflictology (which has even become a separate science, which indicates the great importance of the issue being studied), then we can highlight the teachings of Coser, Dahrendorf and Boulding. The former’s theory of social conflict is built around the inevitability of social inequality, which gives rise to tension. Which leads to collisions. In addition, Coser points out that struggle can begin when there is a contradiction between ideas about what should be and reality. Finally, the scientist does not ignore the limited number of values, competition between different members of society for power, influence, resources, status, etc.

It can be said that this theory does not directly contradict Dahrendorf's approach. But he places emphasis differently. In particular, the sociologist points out that society is built on coercion of some by others. There is a constant struggle for power in society, and there will always be more people who want to get it than there are real opportunities. Which gives rise to endless changes and collisions.

Boulding also has his own concept of conflict. The scientist assumes that it is possible to isolate something common that exists in any confrontation. In his opinion, the structure of social conflict is submitted to analysis and study, which opens up wide opportunities for monitoring the situation and managing the process.

According to Boulding, conflict cannot be completely separated from public life. And by this he understands a situation where both sides (or a larger number of participants) take positions that cannot be fully harmonized with each other’s interests and desires. The researcher identifies 2 basic aspects: static and dynamic. The first concerns the main characteristics of the parties and the general situation as a whole. The second is the reactions and behavior of the participant.

Boulding suggests that the consequences of social conflict in a given case can be predicted with a certain degree of probability. Moreover, in his opinion, errors are often associated with a lack of information about what caused it, what means the parties actually use, etc., and not with the inability to make a forecast in principle. The scientist also draws attention: it is important to know at what stage of the social conflict the situation is now in order to understand what will or could happen at the next stage.

Further development of the theory

Currently, social scientists are actively studying social conflict and ways to resolve it, because today this is one of the most pressing and pressing problems. Thus, the prerequisites for social conflict always concern something deeper than it might seem at first glance. A superficial study of the situation sometimes gives the impression that people’s religious feelings are simply hurt (which also often has its own meaning), but upon closer examination it turns out that there are enough reasons.

Often dissatisfaction accumulates over years. For example, social conflicts in modern Russia are the problem of the clash of different ethnic groups, the economic disadvantage of some regions of the country compared to others, strong stratification within society, the lack of real prospects, etc. At times it seems that the reaction is simply disproportionate, which is impossible to predict what will happen. what consequences do social conflicts lead to in certain cases.

But in reality, the basis for a serious reaction is long-accumulated tension. This can be compared to an avalanche, where snow constantly accumulates. And just one push, a sharp sound, or a blow in the wrong place is enough for the huge mass to break off and roll down.

What does this have to do with theory? Today, the causes of social conflicts are almost always studied in relation to how things actually happen. The objective circumstances of conflicts in society that led to confrontation are examined. And not only from a sociological point of view, but also from an economic, political, psychological (interpersonal, confrontation between the individual and society), etc.

In fact, theorists are tasked with finding practical ways to solve the problem. In general, such goals have always been relevant. But now ways of resolving social conflicts are becoming increasingly important. They are important for the survival of society as a whole.

Classification of social conflicts

As has already been established, the issue being studied is of great importance for people and even for humanity. This may seem like an exaggeration, but when considering this topic, it becomes clear that global types of conflicts really threaten the entire civilization as such. If you want to practice, come up with different scenarios for the development of events in which survival will be in question.

In fact, examples of such social conflicts are described in science fiction literature. Dystopias are largely devoted to them. Finally, from the point of view of social science study of the material, post-apocalyptic literature is of considerable interest. There, the causes of social conflicts are often studied after the fact, that is, after everything happened.

To put it bluntly, humanity has reached a level of development where it is truly capable of destroying itself. The same forces act both as an engine of progress and as a restraining factor. For example, the promotion of industry enriches people and opens up new opportunities for them. At the same time, emissions into the atmosphere destroy the environment. Garbage and chemical pollution threaten rivers and soil.

The danger of nuclear war should not be underestimated. The confrontation between the largest countries in the world shows that this problem has not been solved at all, as it seemed in the 90s. And much depends on what paths humanity will take next. And exactly what methods of resolving social conflicts will it use, destructive or constructive. A lot depends on this, and it’s not just about big words.

So let's get back to the classification. We can say that all types of social conflicts are divided into constructive and destructive. The first is the focus on resolution, on overcoming. Here the positive functions of social conflicts are realized, when society teaches how to overcome contradictions, build dialogue, and also understands why this is even necessary in specific situations.

We can say that as a result, people gain experience that they can pass on to subsequent generations. For example, one day humanity was faced with the legalization of slavery and came to the conclusion that this was unacceptable. Now, at least at the state level, there is no such problem; such practices have been outlawed.

There are also destructive types of social conflicts. They are not aimed at resolution; here the participants are more interested in creating a problem for the other party or in completely destroying it. At the same time, they may formally use completely different terminology to indicate their position for various reasons. The problem of studying a situation is often related to the fact that real goals are often hidden, disguised as others.

However, the typology of social conflicts does not stop there. There is another division. For example, short-term and long-term ones are considered based on duration. The latter, in most cases, have more serious causes and consequences, although such a relationship is not always visible.

There is also a division based on the total number of participants. A separate group includes internal ones, that is, those that occur within the individual. Here the functions of social conflict are not realized in any way, since we are not talking about society at all, it is rather a question of psychology and psychiatry. However, to the same extent that each individual is able to influence those around him, to the same extent such contradictions will cause problems in society as a whole. After all, society as such consists of individual people. Therefore, the importance of such problems should not be underestimated. Then there are interpersonal conflicts, clashes between individual individuals. And the next level is group ones.

From the point of view of direction, it is worth considering horizontal, that is, problems between equal participants (representatives of the same group), vertical (subordinate and boss), as well as mixed ones. In the latter case, the functions of social conflicts are very heterogeneous. This is the realization of ambitions, and the splashing out of aggression, and the achievement of conflicting goals, and often the struggle for power, and the development of society as such.

There is a division according to methods of resolution: peaceful and armed. The main task of the government is to prevent the transition of the first to the second. At least in theory. However, in practice, states themselves often become the instigators of such a transformation, that is, provocateurs of armed clashes.

In terms of volume, they consider personal or household, group, for example, one department against the second within a corporation, a branch against the main office, one class at school against another, etc., regional, which develop in a particular area, local (also an area, only larger, say, the territory of one country). And finally, the biggest ones are global. A striking example of the latter are world wars. As the volume increases, the degree of danger to humanity also increases.

Pay attention to the nature of development: there are spontaneous conflicts and planned, provoked ones. With a large scale of events, some are often combined with others. Finally, in terms of content, the problems are considered industrial, domestic, economic, political, etc. But in general, one confrontation rarely affects only one specific aspect.

The study of social conflicts shows that they are quite possible to manage, they can be prevented, and they are worth controlling. And a lot here depends on the intentions of the parties, on what they are ready for. And this is already influenced by the awareness of the seriousness of the current situation.

Summarizing the work of the American scientist E. Mayo and other representatives of the functionalist (integration) movement, the following negative consequences of conflicts are highlighted:

• · destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, decrease in controllability;
• · distracting personnel from the real problems and goals of the organization, shifting these goals towards group selfish interests and ensuring victory over the enemy;
• · increasing emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of the “main” and others;
• · weakening of opportunities for communication and cooperation with opponents in the future;
• · distracting the conflict participants from solving the organization’s problems and fruitlessly wasting their strength, energy, resources and time fighting each other.

Positive consequences of conflict

In contrast to the functionalists, supporters of the sociological approach to conflicts (they are represented, for example, by the largest modern German conflictologist R. Dahrendorf) consider them as an integral source of social change and development. Under certain conditions, conflicts have functional, positive results:

• · initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always a negation of the old, and since behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization there are always certain people, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
• · articulation, clear formulation and expression of interests, making public the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the pressing problem more clearly and creates favorable conditions for solving it;
• · Forming among the participants in the conflict a sense of belonging to the decision made as a result, which facilitates its implementation;
• · encouraging participants to interact and develop new, more effective solutions that eliminate the problem itself or its significance. This usually happens when the parties show understanding of each other’s interests and realize the disadvantages of deepening the conflict;
• · development of the ability of the parties to the conflict to cooperate in the future, when the conflict is resolved as a result of the interaction of both parties. Fair competition that leads to consensus increases the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
• · defusing psychological tension in relationships between people, clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
• · development of skills and abilities among conflict participants in relatively painless solutions to problems that arise in the future;
• · strengthening group cohesion in the event of intergroup conflicts. As is known from social psychology, the easiest way to unite a group and muffle or even overcome internal discord is to find a common enemy, a competitor. External conflict is capable of extinguishing internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose relevance, severity and are forgotten.

The real ratio of functional and dysfunctional consequences of a conflict directly depends on their nature, the causes that give rise to them, as well as on skillful conflict management.

conflict behavior problem

Conflict is a very capacious concept. It is studied from different positions and in various aspects by many sciences: philosophy, sociology, psychology, jurisprudence, history and political science. Conflict is the basis of any contradiction, and it, in turn, is a stimulus for any changes, sometimes constructive and progressive, and sometimes destructive, destructive. Most often, the concept of conflict is considered in the relationship between people and social groups; in psychology, conflict is also deep intrapersonal experiences and contradictions that give rise to life crises and depression, but this does not always lead to negative consequences. Very often, internal conflict is a stimulus for development, the opening of new life horizons and hidden potential that a person does not realize.

The study of conflict is based on a set of different concepts that make up this complex phenomenon: its dynamics, methods of managing conflict and its typology. Moreover, these concepts can be correlated with various conflicts - social, interpersonal and intrapersonal, but in each of them they will have their own characteristics.

Dynamics of conflict

Conflict is a dynamic, evolving process. The following main stages of its development are distinguished: pre-conflict situation, open conflict and the stage of its completion.

The latent stage preceding an open conflict is the formation of all its structural elements. First of all, the cause of the confrontation arises and its participants appear, and then the parties become aware of the opposition to the current situation as a conflict. The dynamics of the conflict can develop further if, at the first stage, the main contradictions are not resolved peacefully and amicably.

The second stage is the transition of its participants to conflict behavior, the features of which are defined in psychology and conflictology. The dynamics of the conflict at this stage are characterized by an expansion in the number of participants in the confrontation, disorganized actions of the parties directed against each other, a transition from solving problems in business ways to personal accusations, very often with a sharply negative emotional attitude, as well as a high degree of tension leading to stress.

The dynamics of the development of the conflict at this stage are designated by the term escalation, i.e. the increase in destructive, destructive actions of the conflicting parties, often leading to irreversible catastrophic consequences.

Finally, the dynamics of the conflict in the last stage is the search for ways to resolve it. Various methods, techniques and strategies for conflict management are used here, conflict specialists and psychologists are involved. As a rule, resolution is carried out in two ways: by transforming the reasons underlying it, and by restructuring the subjective ideal perception of a given situation in the minds of its participants.

It should be noted that conflict resolution strategies do not always lead to complete success. Quite often, everything ends in a partial result, when the visible forms of the emergence and course of a conflict situation are eliminated, but the emotional tension of the participants is not relieved, which can cause new confrontations to arise.

Complete resolution of a conflict situation occurs only when all its external contradictions and causes are removed, and all internal, emotional and psychological factors are eliminated.

The most difficult task at the last resolution stage of the conflict is the transformation, changing the subjective ideal perception of the causes of the confrontation in the minds of the participants on each side. If this goal is achieved by the mediators or the management of the organization, then the conflict resolution will be successful.

Conflict, interpersonal or intrapersonal, proceeds according to a standard pattern and has the same stages and methods of resolution, only, of course, with its own specifics.