Conflict is a phenomenon that plays a special role in people’s mental life, their development, self-realization, relationships, and finally, in the life of society as a whole. Conflict, as one of the significant phenomena, is directly related to the problem of psychological well-being – a fundamental problem of psychological science.
Although the research of the conflict turned out to be somewhat “divided” between different psychological disciplines – primarily, general psychology, personality psychology, social psychology – the concept of conflict belongs to all psychological science and refers to its fundamental foundations. To carry out conflict resolution activities, it is necessary to understand the main determinants and laws of conflict behavior and activities, while they are not as simple and obvious as it may seem.
Much in the conflicts is hidden, far from always being declared is consistent with reality; the image of the conflict is often not quite the same as its essence, so the conflict should be considered as a very complex social and psychological phenomenon. One of the most pressing issues today is the search for conflict resolution mechanisms in the organizational environment of the conflict, since the conflict has a critical impact on the organizational behavior of any organization – from commercial companies to the police, healthcare institutions, etc.
Psychology of Conflict Behavior
Conflicts, regardless of their degree, their complexity, type and content, differ in that the vast majority of their participants perceive this phenomenon as a very negative phenomenon associated with strong negative emotions, stresses, feelings, disappointments and losses.
Those who are involved in conflict confrontation, as a rule, are in complex mental states, which is why it is quite rightly believed that conflicts have a very high psychological “price.” The goals and motives of the conflict confrontation displace all others and become the most important. All information, people and their relationships begin to be considered solely on the basis of their usefulness for ‘victory’ in a conflict.
The conflicting parties, regardless of the type of conflict, the number of its participants and their intellectual status, operate almost according to the same patterns, use the same tactics and techniques of conflict confrontation, and, most interestingly, in a strictly defined sequence. This is due to the fact that the negative mental states dominating among the participants in the conflict (mainly, severe stresses) specifically “unidirectionally” affect the course of mental processes, the mechanisms of comparison, and even intellectual activity.
Hence, the well-known stereotypic behavior; however, this is often not recognized by many parties to conflicts. At the same time, this stereotyping has its own individual coloring, which necessarily affects the conflict behavior and activities. An analysis of the literature on the conflicts and conflict communication reveals one important feature.
When considering conflicts, authors, as a rule, already use the available typologies of personalities and consider the tendencies of their manifestation in conflicts. The personality traits, manifesting themselves in the sphere of communication, can have a certain influence on the specifics of the emergence and resolution of conflicts. The relationship of the conflict of personality and its individually-typical features is not direct, but is mediated by various factors of the social order, and in some cases is considered as a direct cause.
At the same time, the typological approach is characterized by the fact that the personality in it is considered as a representative of a certain group of people, conditionally united by a certain, basically empirical, attribute. If, when understanding the personality from the position of traits, functions, it is as if viewed from the inside, then with the typological approach, the most probabilistic criteria of one or several given types are searched for in it.
The second approach, which is well-known and widely used in an organizational context, is to study conflict-generating phenomena in groups: a predisposition to aggressive behavior of individuals, the presence of microgrids with a negative orientation, etc. Various personality questionnaires and tests are used for this purpose, as well as sociometry options.
However, the information obtained in this way is data on how a person evaluates his behavior in typical conflict situations, and not on specific behavior in a particular conflict. In addition, fixed personality traits that characterize a tendency toward rigid or aggressive behavior in relations with other people undergo a situational change; evidently, this requires additional research in specific situations.
The third area is focused on the methods of history (“anamnesis”) and self-esteem. It consists in describing specific conflicts or conflict situations that have already occurred in the past. Participants in the conflict, causes, behavior, completion are subjected to a detailed analysis.
However, this approach is not without drawbacks, because it is very important who describes the conflict, since he voluntarily or involuntarily takes a certain position. The listed problems in the application of the methods have led to the need for the integrated use by psychologists of various methods that would complement each other and eliminate the shortcomings in the application of a particular method.
In this context, a good stabilizing factor that impedes the emergence of conflicts in a group, and, therefore, affects the manifestations of conflict, is the presence of a high organizational culture in it as a system of conscious and unconscious ideas, values, prohibitions, traditions shared by all members of the organization.
Organizational culture is multifaceted in its manifestations, but in the context of the problem under discussion, special attention should be paid to one aspect – the presence of positive traditions as an important restrictive framework for conflicting individuals. Positive traditions act as additional norms of social regulation of behavior. They should be encouraged in every way. Groups with a high organizational culture are distinguished by a formed common opinion, which is also a powerful regulator of human behavior.
Fundamentals of the Grounded Analysis of the Psychological Nature of Conflict
At present, a conceptual apparatus is being developed in conflict management and the scientific status of the categories “conflict” and “conflict behavior” is being determined. Following the logic of the systematic approach, it seems advisable to rely on a model of conflict, which includes “variables – space – time.” This model allows taking into account such dichotomous indicators of social phenomena as stable – variable, static – dynamic, one-dimensional – multidimensional.
Based on this approach, a conflict is defined as a form of manifestation of a contradiction, unresolved in the past or being resolved in the present, which occurs in a situation of direct interaction of the subject, and is caused by oppositely chosen goals, images of the conflict situation, representations, conscious or unconscious actions by the participants of the situation, aimed at resolution or removal of the contradiction. This definition allows transferring the conflict problem to the operational level of its study.
According to the peculiarities of considering the reasons and factors causing the occurrence of conflicts, researchers of conflict behavior are conditionally classified as representatives of dispositional and situational approaches. In particular, on the basis of the dispositional approach, there are two statements, the source of which is everyday social experience.
According to the first of them, in most social situations, the behavior of various people is different. The second one says that the behavior of a particular person in various situations can be predicted quite accurately. These statements contributed to the emergence of various explanatory models of conflict behavior. Analyzing the psychological literature, which examines the subjective determinants of conflict, it is advisable to highlight the following points:
- An important point in understanding the socio-psychological conflict at present is the provision on the objective-subjective nature of the occurrence of social phenomena.
- The main determinants of interpersonal conflicts is the social sphere in which the participants in the conflict interact, with their individual psychological characteristics.
- As a subjective determinant, different authors name various aspects of a holistic personality: identity, motives, mental states.
The situational approach focuses on the analysis of individual strategies that are not directly related to the personality. This allows taking into account the ease of changing behavior depending on the situation and, to a greater extent, focusing on the adequacy and effectiveness of a particular tactics and strategy. The situational approach to the study of conflicts was implemented, first of all, in the behaviorist tradition, which emphasized the external determinants of their occurrence.
The subject of studying situational approaches in the research of conflicts was the externally observed conflicts and their behavioral parameters. Within the framework of situational representations, conflict is a form of reaction to an external situation. The greatest contribution to the study of situational determination of the conflict was made by Deutsch, in whose works the conflict is described as a consequence of an objective conflict of interests of the parties.
Now the explanation of social behavior is dominated by an approach that seeks to understand its laws in terms of interaction, reciprocal influence, the contribution of situational and dispositional determinants. This more complex model of reciprocal influence, of the interacting contributions of situational and dispositional determinants of social behavior, assumes a constant mutual influence between the internal states and characteristics of the participants in the conflict and their external conflict.
Thus, a causal relationship operates in both directions between internal characteristics and external conflict rather than simply from internal characteristics to the nature of the conflict process. That is why participants in a long conflict process, cooperative or competitive, often tend in some respects to become mirror images of each other.
The recognition of the interaction of humans and the environment requires a new theory and method of assessing the environment and the relationship of people and the environment. Today, the ideas of topological psychology expressed by Levin are the most relevant. Levin removed the opposition of “external” and “internal”; he focused on the study of situational determinants of behavior.
Subsequently, the scheme of Levin was developed by Magnusson and Edler and took the following form: behavior is the result of continuous interaction between the individual and the situations in which he is involved; on the personal side, cognitive and motivational factors are essential, on the part of the situation – the psychological significance that the situation has for the individual.
Thus, the problem of the ontological approach to the study of the conflict behavior of the personality is actualized, which is understood as the spatio-temporal organization of the subject’s activity, the regulation of which is mediated by the image of the conflict situation. Most researchers consider the subjective factor as mandatory in the occurrence of conflict.
Namely, the perception of a situation as a conflict makes a conflict -“ triggers ”a reaction for the subject in the form of a choice of the appropriate strategy for conflict interaction and its subsequent development. With the help of categorization and interpretation processes, a person in one way or another “determines” a situation. The consequence of this is his behavior, which he builds in accordance with his “definition.”
The ontologically oriented subjective approach, which Rubinstein tried to justify and introduce into psychology, today contributes to solving the problem of a comprehensive and multi-level identification of patterns and mechanisms of the inner world and its impact on actual human behavior, especially in a conflict situation. This means that new prospects are opening up for the study of conflicts and conflict behavior in both theoretical and practical directions.
Intragroup conflict is not just the sum of interpersonal conflicts, but a clash between parts or all members of a group, affecting group dynamics and the results of the group as a whole. Production, social and emotional processes within a group affect the emergence of causes and ways to resolve intra-group conflicts. Often an intra-group conflict arises as a result of a change in the balance of power in a group: a change of leadership, the appearance of an informal leader, etc.
An important influence on the development of conflict relations is exerted by the environment, which determines the conditions in which conflict processes take place. The environment can be either a source of external support to the parties to the conflict, or a constraining or neutral factor. The first phase of conflict behavior gives rise to a tendency to intensify the conflict, but it can stimulate its participants to search for ways to resolve the conflict. Emerging turning point in the development of conflict is characteristic of the second phase of conflict behavior.
In this phase, a “reappraisal of values” occurs. The fact is that before the conflict began, the parties had a certain image of the conflict situation, ideas about the opponent, his intentions and resources, the reaction of the external environment, etc. Namely this image, that is, the ideal picture of the conflict situation, and not itself reality is the immediate psychological reality of the conflicting behavior of the parties.
However, the course of the conflict interaction could significantly change the parties’ ideas about themselves, about each other and about the external environment. It may also be that the conflicting parties or one of them has exhausted its resources. All this serves as an incentive for a decision on the strategy and tactics of further behavior.
The Organizational Environment of the Conflict. Principles of Conflict Behavior in Organizations and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
The leading element (external stimulus) determines the type of situation. In accordance with the characteristics of tasks, components and resources, the following situations can be distinguished: solutions to the main tasks; solutions to each of the non-specific tasks; lack of each type of resource; inclusion of new people in the team; those associated with personality characteristics.
Accordingly, for these types of situations, structures are being formed. Their features and general peculiarities respectively affect the occurrence and course of interpersonal conflicts. It should be noted that there are conflicting situations and roles, more or less sensitive to changes in various psychological elements of these situations due to their functional purpose, and, therefore, more or less conflicting.
Analyzing informal role relationships and the nature of interpersonal role conflict, one can conclude that this conflict occurs when the role relationships that have developed in the group do not meet the requirements of the new situation. This is expressed in contradictions:
- Functional (a contradiction in the distribution of power, duties and rights)
- Operational (a contradiction in the ways of behavior in the new role structure that determine the quality of communicative processes, the style of leadership, communication, and interactions)
- Intrapersonal (a contradiction in the role set of one of the group members). A new role mastered by a person may turn out to be incompatible with the roles that he previously performed and continues to perform in other situations.
It should be emphasized that role relationships in a group develop discretely, under the influence of the environment. Each development cycle begins with a violation of role equilibrium under the influence of an external stimulus and ends with its restoration by specifying another non-specific stimulus and interpersonal conflict. Until the distribution of roles in the simplest situations has occurred, the emergence of functional contradictions and corresponding conflicts for any, even a minor cause, is possible.
The causes of conflict are as varied as the conflicts themselves. They arise from many problems that are directly and often indirectly related to the situation. Physical, emotional, and intellectual characteristics of the participants in the conflict counteraction – everything plays a role. At the same time, hidden conflicts affect not only the participants, but also those who somehow fall into the zone of conflict interaction. If such situations are left unresolved, this will lead to a deterioration in the psychological climate in the team, a drop in discipline, and a decrease in organizational effectiveness.
The main strategies for resolving the conflict are rivalry, cooperation, compromise, adaptation and avoiding the solution of the problem. Depending on the chosen strategies, it is possible to resolve the conflict by force suppression (‘capitulation’ of an opponent) or by negotiation (compromise or cooperation). A compromise can be achieved using the technique of open conversation, and cooperation – using the method of principled negotiations.
Styles of behavior in conflict situations have a direct impact on the psychological climate in the team and the cohesion of team members. Empirical studies show that in groups with the most comfortable climate for their members, when conflicts arise, the prevailing styles of behavior are cooperation, rivalry, and compromise. Namely these tactics have a positive effect on the maturity of the group, on the degree of its group cohesion and on the growth of positive experiences from interactions in the group. Such tactics of behavior in the conflict, as adaptation and avoidance, contribute to the deterioration of the socio-psychological climate in the team.
If three other styles begin to prevail in groups, then the climate begins to improve, and the group becomes more cohesive and organized. It can be assumed that the more members of a group are interested in success, strive for common values, have a sympathetic attitude towards colleagues, wish to achieve a group result, feel pride in a group, are capable of compromise and cooperation, do not seek to individualize and are able to defend their own opinion, the more likely conflicts will be lower.
For many, a conflict in an organization is associated with a disruption in relationships, loss of psychological balance, emotional imbalance. However, the conflict can be useful to both conflicting parties and the company. The task is to ensure that the conflict does not shift from the business context into the field of personal relations, does not go into mutual discrediting, and does not destroy the compatibility that has developed over the years.
An example of a conflict that is “useful” for a company can be the so-called positional conflict, when opposing goals are consciously formed in the organization’s structure for divisions, which results in objective confrontation. The positional conflict makes it possible for management to more objectively evaluate the actions of units, since in the confrontation they are looking for more advanced arguments for their solvency and are developing new technologies.
In other words, positional conflict creates constructive stress useful for the organization. Therefore, in practice, it is often specifically provided for in the target structure of the organization. The pathology of positional conflicts arises when the target tension, caused by purely positional reasons, is saturated with emotions, turns into interpersonal tension and namely interpersonal conflict.
In addition, the complete absence of conflicts in the organization looks unnatural, harmony in management always gives falsehood, because, as the founder of modern conflictology Georg Simmel put it, hostility, along with sympathy, is the basis of human relations.
Obviously, this is why two well-known leaders in the US – J. Burke from Johnson & Johnson Corporation and E. Groone from Inep – insist on the importance of such a factor as “creative confrontation” in managing organizations. They not only encourage diverging views of managers – they simply require them to do so. They surround themselves with people who are sufficiently trained to know the truth, and independent enough in their judgments to state them openly, especially in cases where the truth does not coincide with the views of senior leaders.
Of course, organizational conflicts must be managed, and not so much the form of action is important here as their functional or dysfunctional consequences. Thus, the managerial action in many variations is not only permissible, but also must be perceived as a conflict. Namely, conflict situations can be points of growth and development of the organization, can give a significant impetus to the formation of new relations in it.
In addition, the fact that the stages of the conflict and the stages of its management are in a certain correspondence also influences the choice of a strategy for conflict interaction. Taking this correspondence into account allows determining the priority areas for the work of the leader with conflicts and the choice of an adequate strategy. For example, at the stage of the emergence and development of a conflict situation in the process of forecasting or preventing a conflict, the main efforts should be focused on working with actors who create conflict situations or are prone to create such situations, and the avoidance strategy is applicable here.
At the stage of awareness of a conflict situation in the course of conflict prevention, it is important not to miss work with subjects who are aware of the conflict situations that have arisen. In this case, it is necessary to deter them from switching to active actions in the prevention of destructive conflicts or to direct their action in a ‘legitimate’ direction while stimulating constructive conflicts (strategies for compromise and cooperation).
Of course, all these and some other rules and recommendations for managing conflicts in an organization are not universal. They must be applied creatively, taking into account all the factors of the conflict situation. However, their good knowledge broadens the leader’s conflictological horizons, helps him find the right solutions and direct conflicts in a safe vector.
References
Dreu, C. (2013). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Routledge.
Erbe, N., & Singh, S. (2017). Organizational conflict resolution: An intelligent guide to transforming troubled organizations. Amazon.com Services.
Hoffmann, E. A. (2016). Co-operative workplace dispute resolution. Routledge.
Miller, R., & Postal, G. (2015). Conflict communication: A new paradigm in conscious communication. YMAA Publication Center.
Omisore, B. O., & Abiodun, A. R. (2014). Organizational conflicts: Causes, effects and remedies. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(6), 118-137.
Oni-Ojo, B., Iyiola, O. O., & Osibanjo, A. (2014). Managing workplace conflicts in business environment: The role of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). European Journal of Business and Management, 6(36), 74-82.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Penguin Books.