Group conflict: concept, essence of the issue, who is to blame and what to do

Definition

Group conflict is a confrontation between parties with different interests, aspirations and goals. Subjects of conflict are participants of two or more groups. People tend to unite to defend their interests and value systems. Like-minded people help you understand that there are people in this world who share and support the individual’s value system. What is the object of the conflict? Disputes between groups vary. People defend their interests, ideological values ​​and personal benefits. Groups compete for status, power, and resources. Such a struggle has taken place between people from time immemorial.

What is conflict? This is a confrontation between two groups. Conflict is a discrepancy in interests that leads to serious disagreements between people. Most often, such opposition is accompanied by a strong emotional upsurge. And as a rule, the emotions are very negative.

Specifics of group conflicts

Group conflicts, according to Antsupov A.Ya. and Shipilov A.I., have become commonplace over the past 10 years. Thanks to this, conflictology began to actively develop in Russia.

When assessing the consequences of conflicts, group conflicts are always larger and more severe than interpersonal ones. The danger of such phenomena is their frequent occurrence due to the ambitions of leaders, former managers, etc.

Knowledge of the theory of intergroup conflict is an important guide in group relationships.

Definition 1

Group conflicts are confrontations where one side is represented by a small social group.

Such a conflict arises on the basis of a clash of opposing group motives.

Based on the above, the classification of group conflicts is as follows:

• “person-group” conflict;
• group-group conflict.

Let's consider the first type.

Do you need help from a teacher? Describe the task - and our experts will help you!

Kinds

Conflicts are different. There are three main types:

1. Open. People do not hide their emotions and feelings from others. They openly declare their rights and desires. The collective mind helps each individual feel their importance. A group of like-minded people can resist another group longer. One individual is unable to carry on a long struggle without moral support. Such conflicts are resolved quickly, since they are too obvious and impossible to ignore.
2. Hidden. A group of people will not always state their demands openly. Often people try to veil their demands so that they sound more censorious and tactful. Such conflicts can often be seen in an enterprise. Dissatisfied employees are afraid to immediately voice their dissatisfaction. They will hide their true intentions under various pretexts. A hidden conflict cannot be eliminated quickly if its cause is not immediately identified.
3. Potential. A group conflict that is not too serious at the moment can simmer for years. And it will flare up when circumstances contribute to strengthening the group’s position.

Prospects[edit]

Psychoanalysis[edit]

Lacan saw the roots of intragroup aggression in regression to the "narcissistic moment in the subject", emphasizing "aggression included in the effects of any regression, any arrested development, a complete abandonment of the typical development of the subject." [36] Neville Symington also saw narcissism as a key element of group conflict, highlighting "organizations so riven by narcissistic currents that ... little creativity has been done." [37] Such settings open the way to "many egoistic instinct-feelings, such as the desire to dominate and humiliate one's fellow man, the love of conflict - your courage and strength against mine - the satisfaction of being the object of jealousy, the pleasures derived from cunning, deceit and concealment." [38] Fisher (2012) distinguished between two forms of intragroup conflict in organizations. In the "reparative" form, the paranoid-schizoid "splitting" can be transformed by scapegoating the dynamic to produce reparative ("depressive") intragroup relations. in a contrasting “perverted” form, intragroup trauma causes a paranoid-schizoid functioning fragment, resulting in intersubjective “entanglement” with sadomasochistic dynamics. [39]

However, psychoanalysts themselves have not been able to escape the limitations of group conflict: "Envy, rivalry, conflicts for power, the formation of small groups leading to discord and intrigue are a given" in the psychoanalytic world, for example, with institutions "caught up in factionalism... struggle between inputs and outputs." [40]

Girard [edit]

René Girard considered "collective violence sacred... [as] the great remedy

from public life." [41] He viewed violence directed against a group scapegoat as "the absorption of all the internal tensions, hostilities and rivalries accumulated within the community... a deliberate act of collective displacement." [42]

His view parallels the Freudian approach based on Totem and Taboo

, who believes that "disturbance... lies at the root of the higher complexity to which the kingdom of civilization owes its development." [43] Freud considered violence to be the root of social bonds - "it is no longer the violence of the individual who predominates, but the violence of the community" [44] - and therefore "politics based on wrongdoing... the contract establishes corporate virtue as a refuge from individual sin." [45]

Thus, Girard concluded that regression and “the dissolution of differences promote the spread of double binds ... lead to the disintegration of social institutions” [46], in order to reveal the group conflict hidden at their core.

Solutions

How to resolve the conflict? There are two solutions that help resolve problems.

1. Antagonistic. Group conflict in this case will be resolved until one group wins. This method is considered very tough. The opposing sides will use any methods in order to defeat the enemy. In this case, the saying “the ends justify the means” fits perfectly. The affected group will dislike the winner and immediately try to take revenge.
2. Compromise. The conflict will develop without any consequences. Groups of people will find a solution to a problem that will satisfy both opposing sides. This method of eliminating problems is the most reasonable, since relations between people do not deteriorate, because both opposing groups achieve partial satisfaction of their demands.

Resolution methods

Finding a solution depends on the type of conflict, the reasons for its occurrence, and the size of the group.

Identify the main resolution methods:

• offensive,
• retreat,
• defense,
• evasion.

When an offensive strategy , changes that are undesirable for the opponent are expected to occur.

The retreat method allows you to avoid confrontation without unnecessary losses, while providing the enemy with some concessions. When avoiding, there is a conscious failure to enter into conflict.

When defending, there is only active opposition and protection from directed aggression.

The methods chosen may be violent . Examples: strikes, deprivation of bonuses, wars, the use of a “third force”.

With non-violent methods, conflict resolution occurs through negotiations.

With the neutral method, the conflict is resolved by uniting the parties, one of the parties abandoning its position, or eliminating the reasons that led to the confrontation.

Another method is separation of the parties , that is, severing relations, isolation. If this is a conflict between an individual and a work group, then one of the options is transfer to another department or dismissal.

The integral method allows you to find a solution that satisfies the interests of both parties. However, in this case, the conflicting parties will have to reconsider their goals.

Compromise , the ability of both parties to make concessions.

However, it cannot be used in any group confrontation.

What is important here is the desire of both parties to make concessions, slightly reduce or change their demands.

the opponents' attitudes towards each other is important .

Sometimes there may be a fading of the conflict, its temporary cessation while hostility persists . Under certain circumstances, it can flare up again, sometimes with greater force.

Functions

Conflicts are an integral part of any relationship. Therefore, it should not be surprising that they have both positive and negative functions.

• Uniting like-minded people. Collective intelligence helps you quickly achieve your goals. People bond and function well as a group. United by common interests, they can create something new, find interesting solutions to problems and quickly achieve their goals.
• Discharge tension. Any misunderstanding leads to a tense atmosphere in the group. People cannot think soberly because their nervous system is under tension. Successful conflict resolution helps a person release their emotions and feel better.
• Emotional costs. People who are in conflict with someone injure their nervous system. They cannot focus on anything other than their problems. And until the conflict is resolved, they will be in limbo.

Links[edit]

1. Sigmund Freud, Civilization, Society and Religion
   (PFL 12) p. 353
2. Rusch, H.; Gavrilets, S. (2017). "The Logic of Animal Intergroup Conflict: A Review." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
   . DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.004.
3. Böhm, R.; Rusch, H.; Baron, B. (2018). "The Psychology of Intergroup Conflict: A Review of Theories and Measures." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
   . DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020.
4. Jump up
   ↑ Desmond Morris,
   The Naked Ape Trilogy
   (1994) p. 251
5. R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience
   (1984) p. 64
6. Jump up
   ↑ Forsyth, D. R. (2009).
   Group dynamics
   (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
7. Eliot R. Smith / Diane M. Mackie, Social Psychology
   (2007) p. 515
8. Smith/Mackie, p. 515
9. Smith/Mackie, p. 498
10. Jump up
    ↑ Desmond Morris,
    The Naked Ape Trilogy
    (1994) p. 255
11. R. Skinner / J. Cleese, Families and How to Survive Them
    (1993) p. 135
12. Sigmund Freud, Civilization, Society and Religion
    (PFL 12) p. 305
13. Morris, page 254
14. ^ B s d e e Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, S. O. (2003). "Dangerous Ideas: Five Beliefs That Drive Groups to Conflict." American psychologist
    . Vol. 58. No. 3, 182–192.
15. Gonen, J. Y. The Roots of Nazi Psychology: Hitler's Utopian Barbarism
    . Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
16. Su, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Berca, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). Diversifying psychology: A multicultural revolution. American Psychologist, 1061–1069.
17. Su, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Berca, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). "Diversifying Psychology: A Multicultural Revolution." American psychologist
    . 1061–1069.
18. Su, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Berca, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). Diversifying psychology: A multicultural revolution. American psychologist
    . 1061–1069.
19. Jump up
    ↑ Volkan, V. D. (1999).
    "Psychoanalysis and Diplomacy: Part 1. Individual and Large Group Identity." Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Research
    . pp. 29–55.
20. Erikson, E. H. Childhood and Society
    . New York: Norton.
21. Kramer, R. M.; Messick, D. M. (1998). Getting along with a little help from our enemies: Collective paranoia and its role in intergroup relations. In: Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. K. Sedikides, J. Schopler and K. A. Insko (eds.)
    . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 233–255.
22. Gamson, W. A. ​​(1995). Construction of a social process. In H. Johnston and B. Klandermans (eds.), Social Movements and Culture
    . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 85–106.
23. ↑
    Horowitz, David, (2001). Ethnic Groups in Conflict, updated edition with new preface, 2nd edition, University of California Press, pp. 161-175
24. Houle, Cyril O. (1989). Boards: Their Character and Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 1-55542-157-1.
25. Ilgen, D. R.; Mitchell, T. R.; Fredrickson, J. W. (1981). "Bad Performers: Feedback from Managers and Subordinates." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
    .
    27
    (3):386–410.
26. Amin Ghaziani, Dividends of Dissent
    (2008) pp. 15–20
27. R. Skinner / J. Cleese, Families and How to Survive Them
    (1994) p. 132–3
28. Engleberg, Isa N.; Wynn, Dianna R. (2007) (in English). group work 175–193 (4th ed.). Boston New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
29. Smith/Mackie, p. 448
30. ↑
    Randy Hodson,
    Dignity at Work
    (2001) p. 215 and p. 218
31. ^ ab Aamodt, M. G. (2016) Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach.
    Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 489.
32. Moreland, R. L. & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137-192.
33. Bernard, Oladosu. "Organizational Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies" (PDF). semanticsholar.org
    . International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management.
34. Wright, S. C., Tropp, L. R., & Mazziotta, A. (2017). Contact between groups, peace and conflict. Peace and Conflict: A Journal of Peace Psychology, 23, 207-209.
35. Omisore, Bernard. "Organizational Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies" (PDF). semanticsholar.org
    . International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management.
36. Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: Choice
    (1997) p. 24
37. Neville Symington, Narcissism: A New Theory
    (1993) p. 10
38. Jump up
    ↑ Clemens J. France, in J. Halliday/P. Fuller, editors,
    The Psychology of Gambling
    (1974), p. 151
39. Fisher, Michael Daniel (September 28, 2012). "Organizational Turbulence, Challenges, and Trauma: Theorizing Mental Health Collapse." Organizational Studies
    .
    33
    (9):1153–1173. DOI: 10.1177/0170840612448155.
40. Janet Malcolm, Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession
    (1988) p. 106 and p. 65
41. Girard, Job
    (1987) b. 29 and page 150
42. Girard, Violence and Sacred
    (1977) b. 7
43. Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
    (London, 1992) p. 6
44. Freud, page 351
45. Norman Brown, John O'Neill, Sociology as the Leather Trade
    (1972), p. 47
46. ↑
    Girard,
    Violence and the Sacred,
    pp. 188 and pp. 127
47. J. Boardman et al. The Oxford History of the Classical World
    (1991) p. 460
48. Ed. P. Alexandra, William Shakespeare: The Complete Works
    (1962), p. 544
49. G. M. Trevelyan, Peace and Protestant Continuity
    (1965) p. 306

Stages

Each conflict goes through several stages of development from its inception to its successful resolution.

• A problem occurs. At the first stage, the essence of the issue is revealed, and a group of people tries to achieve their goals using adequate methods. Negotiations are conducted, the opinions of the parties are revealed, and opponents appear.
• Open conflict. If at the first stage it is not possible to reach a common opinion, then a cold or open war ensues. Groups discuss in a raised voice, get irritated and try in every possible way to achieve what they want.
• Building relationships. After resolving a conflict, it is not always possible to quickly establish relationships between members of different groups. If a specific group wins, then opponents may harbor resentment, which will become a reason for a new conflict. Therefore, when resolving any controversial issue, you need to find a compromise.

Causes

The sources of conflict in any group are the same. People want to achieve their goals, so they unite. What most often causes conflict?

• Social inequality. It just so happens that some people are always in a privileged position. Such people are smart, educated and wealthy. They do not want to let people with less income into their circle. This state of affairs does not suit the oppressed. They want a better life and an increase in their status.
• Misunderstanding. Each person is free to interpret events based on his own development, intelligence and morality. It is never possible to look at the same problem in the same way. Therefore, conflicts arise that divide society into several parts.
• Power struggle. No matter how good the government is, there will always be dissatisfied people. Who is to blame and what to do in such a situation, everyone decides for themselves. Most often, people are divided into groups. Some support the current order of things, while others want to change management, believing that life will be better with a change in power.
• Generation difference. People of the younger generation are liberals, and older members of society are most often conservatives. Differences in views and interests often cause conflicts.

Intragroup conflict (infighting) [edit]

Main article: Intragroup conflict

Sources [edit]

• Task Conflict
  :
  conflict
  occurs when members within a group disagree on issues relevant to achieving common goals. Effective groups and organizations use these conflicts to make plans, develop creativity, solve problems, and resolve misunderstandings. However, people who disagree with the group do so at their own risk, even if their position is reasonable. Dissenters often receive high levels of hostility from other group members, are liked less, are assigned low-status tasks, and are sometimes ostracized.
• Process Conflict
  :
  conflict
  refers to disagreements about the methods or procedures a group should use to accomplish its tasks.
  This occurs when strategies, policies and procedures conflict with each other. For example, some group members may propose discussing controversial ideas, while other group members may prefer to put controversial ideas to a vote. Essentially, during procedural conflicts, group members disagree about how
  to disagree. Situations of procedural conflict can be proactively minimized by adopting formal rules (e.g., by-laws, constitutions, policy statements) that define goals, decision-making processes, and responsibilities. [24]
• Personal Conflict
  : Personal conflicts, also known as affective conflicts, personality conflicts, emotional conflicts or relationship conflicts, are conflicts that arise when group members do not like each other. Personal animosities do not always lead to conflict, but people often mention their negative feelings toward another group member when complaining about their group. There is also evidence that most group conflicts are indeed personal conflicts. One study of high-level corporate executives found that 40% of disputes were caused by “individual animosities between executives without specific reference to other issues” (Morrill, 1995, p. 69). Criticism, when one person evaluates another or his work negatively, is one of the common causes of personal conflicts. [25]

Political[edit]

Opinions are divided on the merits of struggle in political movements. While "most scholars view infighting as a drain on political potential", others argue that "the value of struggle lies in its potential to generate strategic opportunities and promote... accountability" and that (at least with regard to identity politics) "struggle is it is a key place for culture... concretizes cultural conversations." [26]

However, among extremists who are “threatened by the existence of someone

-
then
again, unless that person's views seem identical to his own", infighting and group splits become the destructive norm: "they all fall apart so quickly... they seem to attack each other more than they attack their real enemies on the other side of the political spectrum ". [27]

Small group[edit]

The same dichotomy exists within small groups. Given that both constructive and destructive conflict occur in most small groups, it is important to emphasize constructive conflict and minimize destructive conflict. Conflict is inevitable, but if used constructively, it is not a bad thing.

Using constructive conflict in small groups by identifying problems and alternative solutions (while valuing others) allows the group to move forward. [28] Although "conflict can involve interpersonal problems as well as task problems," leaving a window open for disagreement can be very helpful when "so that, for example, "sexual harassment becomes a chronic accompaniment of broader patterns of struggle." [thirty]

Individual-group conflict [edit]

Individual-group conflict occurs between an individual in a group and the group as a whole. This conflict can arise quite easily. Problems can arise if individual needs or goals differ from those of the group. [31] A common issue between an individual and his group is the level of commitment. A person may feel different levels of commitment and move into different roles within a group. Thus, there are five stages that a person can go through in their membership: "exploration, socialization, maintenance, resocialization and recollection." Along with these stages, there are also different types of transition that a person can go through: “entry, acceptance, divergence and exit.” These stages and transitions can affect a person's personal values ​​and level of commitment. [32]

Group conflict[edit]

Group conflict occurs between two or more different groups. This conflict usually occurs when two groups are fighting and working towards the same goal. This can create contact and tension between groups. [31] Groups may come into conflict with each other due to their productivity, importance to certain groups, and, in general, union-management rivalry. [33] Although there may be conflict between groups, their members can still come into contact with each other. Contact between groups can promote forgiveness and sometimes lead to reconciliation between groups. This contact between groups can also help group members form new opinions about each other, reduce prejudice, and promote acceptance. [34]An example of group conflict would be when two coffee shops in one city are fighting to attract more customers than those in the other. Another factor that can cause problems between groups is geographic location. Conflict has negative consequences for both the individual and the organization. Group conflict has many negative consequences. For example, individuals in a group tend to have an increased lack of interest in work, higher job dissatisfaction, and increased anxiety about work [35].

Stages of conflict resolution

To successfully resolve a controversial issue, you need to break down the problem and then eliminate it.

• Diagnostics. At this stage, groups develop their demands, choose a strategy that they will follow in order to achieve a win for the opposing side.
• Discussion. Collective bargaining between two opposing groups helps to better understand the views of the opponents. Groups put forward their demands and bring opponents up to date. After all the circumstances have been clarified, a decision can be made.
• Conflict resolution. Who is to blame and what to do is decided in the first two stages of a controversial situation. The third stage is finding a compromise or the complete victory of one of the opposing sides.

Conflict management

The science of conflictology resolves all issues related to controversial situations that arise in various groups. To solve any problem, you need a desire to make contact. For this purpose, each group has its own leader. A responsible person expresses the interests of his fellow humans. If all members of the group participate in resolving the conflict, a bazaar will result. Therefore, the problem will be resolved by two people or a small group of representatives of each team. Adjustment comes through discussion. The opposing sides express their opinions regarding the resolution of the conflict. As a result, the controversial situation is resolved according to one of two scenarios:

• a clear winner emerges;
• there is a compromise.

Forms of manifestation

Conflict between groups can occur in different scenarios:

• rivalry , when communities need to achieve the same goal,
• clash , in which groups seek to cause harm to each other,
• domination , one group tries to dominate and control another, while the second puts up resistance,
• avoidance , a group or individual tries to withdraw, avoid interaction by any means,
• suppression , one group gains an advantage, begins to impose its own rules,
• adaptation , the desire of one group or individual to adapt to another group for the sake of maintaining status, peace of mind, life.

The form of manifestation depends on the size of the group, the strength and capabilities of its participants, the likely degree of punishment that will follow upon submission, and the willingness to take risks.

Negative impacts of conflict

There are not many of them, but they are very significant:

• Destruction of friendships. If the members of two opposing groups were friends, then the further development of such relationships is a big question. Companions will try to break up the connection between their supporters and will do their best to prove that there is no need to maintain old connections.
• Any conflict interferes with the normal course of things. If there is discord between employees in a company, then the normal functioning of the enterprise will be in question. Instead of fulfilling their responsibilities, people will be busy sorting things out.
• Loss of reputation. Few people know how to control their words and take responsibility for every phrase spoken. Often people throw words into the wind without thinking about the consequences. Public statements made with zeal can backfire on any member of the group. People may say something in the heat of the moment, and they will have to spend a lot of time and effort to restore their reputation.

Positive Impact of Conflict

Conflict between people should not be perceived as a tragedy. Human misunderstandings are the norm. It’s not for nothing that our ancestors came up with the expression that truth is born in a dispute. What are the positive aspects of conflict?

• Any controversial situation helps a group of people, as well as each individual, to better understand themselves. A person reconsiders his value system and makes sure that he thinks correctly. Never be ashamed to admit your mistakes. It is a shame to not follow the path that a person considers correct.
• Any problem can unite a team. People have the opportunity to look at their allies and understand what kind of society surrounds them. Often, in the process of controversial situations, friendships are formed, which, after the conflict has been resolved, continue to be maintained for many years.
• Each person begins to correctly set personal priorities. The essence of the issue in any controversial situation is quite clear. The group is fighting to defend its interests. And each individual can understand that the issue being solved is vitally important for him. Setting priorities helps a person grow and not stray from the right course of life.

The concept of group conflicts and their classification

· Group conflict is a confrontation in which at least one of the parties is represented by a small social group.

We agree to consider a small group to be a small group (from 3 to 40 people) of people who have a common goal, are connected by joint activities and are in direct personal contact (communication) for a long time.

There are two main types of group conflicts:

1. Conflict "person-group"

2. Group-group conflict (sometimes called intergroup conflict).

In accordance with this division, let us consider the classification of group conflicts.

1. Classification of conflicts of the “person-group” type:

1.1. Conflict between the leader and the team

usually arises as a result of low competence of the boss, unacceptable management style, appointment of a new manager with unique requirements;

1.2. Conflict between an ordinary employee and the team

can develop when someone deviates from established group norms of behavior. Sometimes the cause of such a conflict is the presence in the team of a personality with a pronounced conflict orientation (the so-called conflict personality);

1.3. Conflict between the individual and the microgroup

may arise as a result of changes in group consciousness, the leader exceeding his authority, low professional training

2. Classification of conflicts of the “group-group” type:

2.1. Conflict between the administration and staff of the organization

may arise due to violation of legal norms, low wages, poor communication;

2.2. Conflict between divisions

in an organization it usually arises due to the distribution of resources, mutual dependence on tasks performed, structural restructuring;

2.3. Conflict between microgroups

in an organization is associated with the opposition of their interests, the ambitions of their leaders, the presence of mutually exclusive goals and values;

2.4. Conflict between organizations

has the following reasons: failure to fulfill contractual obligations, struggle for sales markets, access to resources, spheres of influence;

2.5. Conflict between informal groups in society

is based on group extremism or a discrepancy in spiritual interests and values.

three to the study and description of group conflicts :

A. The motivational approach to the study of group conflicts proposes consideration of a complex of motivating reasons as a basis for explaining group behavior. For example, within the framework of this approach, group hostility towards “outsiders” is considered as a mechanism for maintaining internal stability and cohesion of the group.

B. The situational approach to the study of group conflicts focuses the attention of researchers on the analysis of the situation as a set of external factors. The situation may be in the nature of cooperation or competition. Proof of the situational conditionality of group conflicts was produced by American psychologists M. Sheriff, R. Blake, J. Mouton. The findings of these researchers helped to refute the idea that intergroup hostility is inevitable and has its origins in human nature and human relationships.

B. The cognitive approach to the study of group conflicts emphasizes the decisive role of the group’s cognitive (cognitive) attitudes towards each other. According to scientists, the decisive factor in intergroup interaction is not the cooperative or competitive nature of the situation, but the social attitudes that arise.

Currently, a promising direction in the study of group conflicts is the combination of different approaches. All group conflicts have a common development dynamics:

1) Gradual strengthening of the parties to the conflict due to the introduction of increasingly active forces, as well as through the accumulation of experience;

2) An increase in the number of problem situations and a deepening of the primary conflict situation;

3) Increasing conflict activity of participants, changing the nature of the conflict towards toughening, involving new people in the conflict;

4) The increase in emotional tension that accompanies conflict interactions, which can influence the behavior of participants in both mobilizing and disorganizing ways;

5) Changing the attitude towards the problem situation and the conflict in general.

Let's move on to studying ways to manage group conflicts.

2. Conflicts of the “person-group” type: features, causes and specifics of management.

The main features of conflicts between an individual and a group are the following:

1. Structure

such a conflict is heterogeneous. The subjects of the conflict are, on the one hand, the individual, and on the other, the group. Therefore, conflict interaction occurs on the basis of a collision of personal and group motives, and images of a conflict situation are presented, respectively, in individual and group views and assessments;

2. Causes

Conflicts of this type are unique. Three main groups of reasons can be distinguished, namely:

2.1. Reasons associated with violation of role expectations

;

2.2. Reasons associated with the inadequacy of the internal attitude to the status of the individual

. Here we will keep in mind that the internal attitude reflects the individual’s subjective perception of his status, and the status shows the real position of the individual in the system of intra-group relations;

2.3. Reasons associated with violating group norms

or general rules of behavior that all members of the group adhere to;

3. Forms of manifestation

Such conflicts are quite diverse:

3.1. Application of group sanctions;

3.2. Significant restriction or complete cessation of communication between group members and the conflicting person;

3.3. Sharp criticism of the conflicting person;

3.4. Euphoria on the part of the conflicting party.

We should dwell on such a variety as conflict between the group and the leader . Such conflicts occur most acutely in cases where the manager’s competence does not correspond to accepted standards and existing expectations, or in cases of non-acceptance of the manager’s moral character and character.

Let us consider the main stages of managing such conflicts and the corresponding management actions.

1. Conflict prediction stage . At this stage, the following actions are advisable:

1.1. Studying the individual psychological characteristics of employees;

1.2. Study and analysis of public opinion, group motives and values;

1.3. Analysis of relationships in a team, identification of microgroups, identification of leaders and outcasts;

1.4. Knowledge and analysis of early symptoms of hidden conflict:

– actualization of personal interests and needs of the conflicting personality;

– critical statements addressed to the conflicting personality;

– restriction of communications with a conflicting personality;

1.5. Violating group norms, displaying arrogance and contempt;

2. prevention stage is characterized by the adoption of specific measures to neutralize conflict behavior. These include:

2.1. Application of pedagogical measures:

– conversation;

– explanation;

– formation of internal readiness (to accept group norms);

2.2. Application of administrative measures:

– bringing into compliance the responsibilities and professional training of a potential conflictant;

– transfer of active participants in the brewing conflict to other units;

3. The stage of conflict regulation is characterized by work to recognize its reality by the conflicting person. In addition, at this stage the following actions give results:

– clarification

conflict personality causes of the current situation and consequences of the conflict;

– explanation

the leader of the microgroup in which the conflict has arisen, ways of possible resolution of the conflict;

4. resolution stage is usually associated with the active actions of its participants. There are two main ways to resolve conflict:

– first

when a conflicting person realizes and admits his mistakes and shortcomings and corrects them;

– second

, when the interests and needs of a conflicting individual are not consistent with the interests of the group, a personnel decision (dismissal, transfer) is necessary.

Let's move on to consider the conflict between groups.

3. Conflict of the “group-group” type: features, causes and specifics of management .

In an intergroup conflict, the subjects are groups (small, medium or micro groups) pursuing goals that are incompatible with the goals of the opposing group. Thus, the basis of this conflict is the collision of opposing group motives, interests, values ​​and goals. Let us highlight the features of intergroup interests:

1. Subjective content of the image of a conflict situation

is in the nature of group views, opinions and assessments. It is characterized by the presence of three phenomena:

1.1. Deindividuation of mutual perception

comes down to blurring the individual characteristics of members of conflicting groups and approaching them in accordance with their belonging to one’s own or a hostile community;

1.2. Inadequate group comparison

represents the use of double standards for evaluating groups, when one's own group is rated higher, and the merits of the opposing group are underestimated;

1.3. Group attribution

or explaining group behavior with different reasons. Thus, the positive behavior of the in-group and the negative behavior of the out-group is explained by internal reasons, and the negative behavior of the in-group and the positive behavior of the out-group is explained by external reasons;

2. Intergroup conflicts differ in forms

manifestations and progression. Such forms can be meetings, conferences, rallies, strikes, discussions, negotiations.

Additional functions appear in intergroup conflicts

, such as cohesion of a group defending just interests; the split of a group defending illegal interests; approval of the individual’s status in the group.

Let's move on to studying ways to manage intergroup conflicts. To do this, we use the same stages as in the case of studying conflicts between an individual and a group, which we discussed earlier.

1. At the stage of conflict prediction it is necessary:

1.1. Constant interaction with external organizations to analyze public opinion;

1.2. Organization of work with leaders of opposing groups;

1.3. Identifying early symptoms of intergroup conflicts in the latent phase.

2. At the stage of conflict prevention, conflict management comes down to the following actions:

2.1. Development of measures to neutralize the conflict based on an analysis of its causes and factors;

2.2. Continue to work with leaders to exchange information about potential rivals;

2.3. Application of pedagogical and administrative measures;

3. At the stage of conflict management it is necessary:

3.1. Recognition of the reality of the conflict by the leaders of conflicting groups;

3.2. Legitimization of the conflict, i.e. establishing norms and rules for conflict group interaction;

3.3. Institution of conflict, i.e. creation of working groups to resolve conflicts;

3.4. Application of conflict regulation technologies (information, communication, socio-psychological, organizational).

4. At the stage of conflict resolution, it is necessary to organize negotiations between the conflicting parties and direct them to harmonize interests and positions.

As a result of studying this topic, the following conclusions can be formulated:

· In the study of group conflicts, there are three main approaches - motivational, situational and cognitive, which differ in the interpretation of the main sources of conflict.

· There are conflicts between groups and conflicts between individuals and groups. They have specific features, but there is a certain commonality in their management.

Task 8

Analyze the cases of group conflicts of the “person-group” type known to you. Focus on the method of resolving such conflicts (real and optimal). Enter the analysis data into the table.

LECTURE “CONFLICTS IN THE FAMILY” (Topic 10) .

The main areas of interpersonal interaction among adults are family relationships

and professional activities. It is these areas that are the most common in terms of conflict. With regard to family conflicts, there is a basic contradiction, which consists in the fact that society approves of the idea of ​​​​the conflict-free nature of family relationships. At the same time, it is in the family that many needs of the individual are satisfied, which almost inevitably leads to the emergence of contradictions, and therefore creates, at a minimum, conditions for conflict interaction between people. Therefore, studying the causes and characteristics of conflicts in the family allows us to find optimal ways to prevent and resolve them.

⇐ Previous5Next ⇒

What to do if there is no reciprocity? And now let's come down from heaven to earth. Have you landed? Let's continue the conversation...

What does the IS operation and maintenance department do? Responsible for the safety of data (copying schedules, copying, etc.)…

WHAT AND HOW THEY WRITTEN ABOUT FASHION IN MAGAZINES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY The first issue of the Apollo magazine for 1909 began, in fact, with a policy statement from the magazine’s editors...

What makes your dreams come true? One hundred percent, unshakable confidence in your...

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use Google search on the site:

Adviсe

Do you want to quickly resolve a conflict? Then follow these tips:

• Groups that are in conflict should be forced to jointly engage in socially beneficial activities. Work brings people together. Engaging in useful activities together forces members of warring groups to look at their opponents from a different perspective. The emerging sympathy will help relieve tension and reduce it to nothing.
• If you cannot quickly resolve a controversial issue, you should replace the value system. Let what seemed like a priority fade into the background. The main thing is to make people believe that the essence of the conflict is unimportant, and it is not at all necessary to find a winner and a loser now.
• Group members must interact not only with each other, but also with other people. A person who communicates with independent people who do not take part in resolving a difficult situation can receive good advice or reconsider their views on certain things.

Intergroup conflict[edit]

Sources [edit]

Social psychology, particularly the discontinuity effect of intergroup conflict, suggests that "groups tend to be even more competitive and aggressive than individuals." [7] Two main sources of intergroup conflict have been identified: "competition for valuable material resources, according to realist conflict theory, or for social rewards such as esteem and deference... as described in relative deprivation theory" [8]

Group conflict can easily enter into an escalating spiral of hostility, marked by polarized views of black and white, with comparable actions viewed in diametrically opposed ways: “we make concessions, but they try to lure us in with tricks. We are persistent and brave, but they are inflexible, irrational, stubborn and blinded by ideology." [9]

It is widely believed that intergroup and intragroup hostility are (at least to some extent) inversely related: that "unfortunately, there is an inverse relationship between external wars and internal strife." [10] Thus, "in politics, for example, one can gain the extremely comforting feeling of mutual support from one's group by focusing one's attention on the enemy." [11] Freud wrote a similar, almost harmless version, according to which “it is communities with adjacent territories, as well as connected with each other in other ways, that are constantly at odds with and ridicule each other - as, for example, the Spaniards and the Portuguese ... . [as] a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the tendency towards aggression, by which cohesion between members of the community becomes easier." [12] A more extreme version of the theory suggests that "the pent-up aggression of a subgroup, unless it can combine with the pent-up aggression of other subgroups to attack a common external enemy, will manifest itself in the form of riots, persecutions, and insurrections." [13]

Domains of beliefs that contribute to[edit]

Through an extensive review of the literature, Roy J. Eidelson and Judy I. Eidelson identified parallels between individuals and the collective worldview of groups based on five key belief areas. [14]

• Superiority
  : At the individual level, this belief revolves around a person's strong belief that he or she is better than other people in important ways. At the group level, superiority involves shared beliefs in moral superiority, entitlement, chosenness, and special destiny. [14] The belief that one's group has a superior cultural heritage (eg, history, values, language, traditions) is common among groups that base their identity on their ethnicity. The development of Hitler's ideology of the Aryans as the "master race" is one example of this belief. [15] This belief may be unconscious when group members do not realize: “The power and influence of such a worldview is directly related to its operation as an invisible curtain that prevents individuals, groups and organizations from seeing their harmful consequences.” [16] These authors noted that several committees studying racism have used the term ethnocentric monoculturalism to describe this belief in the superiority of one's own group's cultural heritage (including history, values, language, traditions, arts and crafts, etc.) over cultural legacy of other groups. Within this belief system, they also noted a corresponding belief in the inferiority of the heritage of all other groups, the ability to impose their standards and beliefs on less powerful groups, evidence of the group's core beliefs and values ​​in their practices, programs and policies as well as in the institutions and structures of the group society, and that they were capable of operating beyond the level of conscious awareness. [17]
• Injustice
  : At the individual level, this belief revolves around perceived mistreatment by others and/or the world at large.
  At the group level, this means a worldview in which the ingroup has serious and legitimate claims against the outgroup. [14] This belief is believed to have contributed significantly to the motivation for war over the last two centuries, as most wars of the time focused on issues of justice
  rather than security or power (Welch, 1993). Injustice in a group environment may be based on a shared belief that their group has not achieved desired results because of the actions or inactions of a more powerful group that led to a biased or undesirable outcome, rather than because of inconsistencies or actions. the group itself.[18] Volkan coined the phrase “Selective Traumas” to refer to “a mental representation of an event that caused a large group of people to experience severe loss, feel helpless, and be victimized by another group” [19] that are distorted to perpetuate a belief of injustice.
• Vulnerability
  : At the individual level, vulnerability refers to a person's belief that he or she is constantly in danger. At the group level, this belief manifests itself as fears for the future. This vulnerability can manifest itself in a group as catastrophic thinking—where the perceived worst-case scenario is seen as inevitable. [14] Chirot (2001) notes that the genocides of Armenia, Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda shared the common belief that “if they had not first destroyed their real or imagined enemies, they themselves would have been destroyed” (p. 10).
• Mistrust
  : At the individual level, this belief focuses on the perceived intention of others to cause harm and/or be hostile.
  The concept of trust is often considered by psychologists as the first problem of psychosocial development. [20] At the group level, this worldview focuses in particular on the idea that out-groups are dishonest, untrustworthy, and have negative intentions towards in-groups. In its more extreme manifestations, this belief is similar to collective paranoia
  , which is defined as collective beliefs, false or exaggerated, that cluster around ideas of harm, persecution, threats, or other neglect by malicious outgroups [21]. Even when such hostility does not exist, this mistrust can cause group members to view each other's behavior as hostile and unkind. [14]
• Helplessness
  : At the individual level, helplessness is based on the belief that even carefully planned and executed actions will not lead to the desired outcome. When viewed at a group level, it represents a collective mindset of powerlessness and dependency. The group shares a pessimistic approach that focuses on their own weaknesses and attributes failures to their own limitations. [14] Helplessness, when it exists as a shared belief in a group, serves as a limitation to organized political movement, since those who participate in a social movement must see themselves as capable of correcting the wrongs they perceive. [22]

Donald Horowitz also argues that the belief, no matter how accurate, that one group is behind another group can also contribute to conflict and that such groups often face significant anxiety about threats posed by other groups. The backward group fears that it will eventually be dominated by more advanced groups. Backward groups tend to view their individual members as having negative qualities such as laziness and lack of intelligence, while collectively they view themselves as disorganized and lacking unity, with members only caring about themselves and not their group. In contrast, members of advanced groups are perceived as having positive qualities such as integrity, intelligence, and hard work, while collectively they are perceived as well organized, cohesive, and committed to promoting their group interests. Thus, advanced groups are perceived as having superior qualities as at the individual and collective level. The resulting anxiety experienced by backward groups can lead them to believe that their very survival as a group is at stake, and that they risk extinction, being replaced by more advanced groups. Horowitz argues that this means that backward groups are more likely to initiate violence.[23]