Межличностные конфликты

The standard definition of conflict seems a suitable starting point for investigating communication, as long as “perceived goal incompatibility” is regarded in a very flexible way; that is, people are not fully aware of their goals, goals emerge and change during interaction, and retrospective accounts of goals may be entirely different than prospective goals. In addition, the usual definition is only vaguely instructive about critical features of communication during conflict.

For many years, conflict management researchers tried to determine how conflict could be reduced, eliminated and resolved in organizations. The implicit assumption was that conflict was detrimental to the organization and that it would be beneficial to reduce or eliminate conflict. More recently, researchers have asked questions that may be more useful: when, and under what circumstances, is conflict detrimental and when and under what circumstances does it benefit the organization? Thus, conflict is not assumed to be good or bad but rather it is recognized as a factor that can be both. The impetus then becomes attempting to manage conflict in a way that will ameliorate or eliminate its destructive effects while capitalizing on and enhancing its constructive effects.

Since people have multiple goals, conflict may be about several things simultaneously. Thus, one key characteristics of human conflict is that the issues are potentially diffuse. Although a certain primary goal may dominate talk about conflict, unarticulated secondary goals also shape interaction and may in some sense be said to represent the “real issues” driving conflict, as opposed to those that are mostly symptomatic. A common observation, for example, is that people act out relational disputes through concrete, “picky” issues. Further, abstract relational and identify issues are said to spawn or inflame recurring conflicts over concrete peripheral issues, since the latter are easier to isolate and discuss. The implication here is that there are multiple issues in conflicts, including ones that are not explicitly on the table.  

Conflict situations often invoke multiple, incompatible goals, such as a desire to criticize but also to contain conflict and appear reasonable. The most skillful communicators may construct integrated messages that reconcile multiple goals; however, this is especially challenging in the stressful and cognitively demanding environment of ongoing argument. Thus, conflicts may be characterized by incoherent and paradoxical lines of action, such as “hit and run” conflict, “hostile avoidance”, and various forms of demand-withdraw.  Because of the diffuse and contradictory nature of communicative goals, relational conflicts often violate conventional maxims governing orderly conversation.  This is seen, for example, in escalating arguments where speakers produce a string of topic shifts and counter-complaints that disrupt the other’s arguments and assert alternative definitions of conflict [7].  

Conflict arises due to a variety of factors. Individual differences in goals, expectations, values, proposed courses of action, and suggestions about how to best handle a situation are unavoidable. When one add to these differences the unease arising out of a business' future, conflict often increases.

After reviewing a number of recent definitions of conflict, concluded that although definitions are not identical, they overlap with respect to the following elements:

1. Conflict includes opposing interests between individuals or groups in a zero-sum situation;

2. Such opposed interests must be recognized for conflict to exist;

3. Conflict involves beliefs, by each side, that the other will thwart (or has already thwarted) its interests;

4. Conflict is a process; it develops out of existing relationships between individuals or groups and reflects their past interactions and the contexts in which these took place; 

5. Actions by one or both sides do, in fact, produce thwarting of others’ goals.

One of the early theorists on conflict, created a typology that distinguishes three main sources of conflict: economic, value, and power.

- Economic conflict involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each party wants to get the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each party are directed toward maximizing its gain. Union and management conflict often has as one of its sources the incompatible goals of how to slice up the “economic pie”. 

- Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies – the preferences, principles and practices that people believe in. International conflict often has a strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of life and its political-economic system.

- Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of influence that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one party to be stronger without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat, or in a “stand-off” with a continuing state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between individuals, between groups or between nations, whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship. Power also enters into all conflict since the parties are attempting to control each other [2].

Conflict is inevitable. It is negative when it leads to violence, undermines the communication relationship between the parties involved in the conflict, stimulates people to become uncooperative, or prevents the parties from addressing real issues or problems. However, the conflict can be a positive creative force, when it increases communication, releases stored feelings, leads to the solution of problems, results in the growth of the relationship between parties in conflict, or improves performance. 

Result of the conflict depends on the way it solves. Just as there are many sources of conflict, people choose different ways to deal with. Some try to avoid conflict as much as possible they can. They believe that the conflict is a signal problem in their relationships; they think a “nice” people do not experience conflict, or that conflict will inevitably bring frustration, anger or anxiety [3]. 

This approach may prove to be ineffective for two reasons. First, conflict is inevitable. In any form of interaction, people will have a different opinion or want something different, and this is no problem. In fact, the “negative” emotions in human interaction are a threat, but it is very important manner. 

When using a positive and constructive manner to resolve conflicts, they might bring reconciliation and to meet the individual needs of comfort, intimacy update and strengthen the faith, so that people can be more cooperation and overcome difficulties. 

There are many different strategies to handling conflict; however, not all of them are wise strategies. According to Floyd “Our choices almost always have an effect on our relationships”. Most people use conflict skills that one observed growing up, unless they have made a conscious effort to change the conflict resolution style. Some of people observed good conflict resolution, while others observed faulty conflict resolution. Therefore, it is important to learn, and practice effective conflict resolution strategies. The conflict resolution strategy one chose to apply will have an effect on the relationships with others. Conflict does not damage relationships, poor resolution of conflict does. Interpersonal conflict resolution is a permanent solution to the problem or dispute through dialogue, without physical or verbal violence.

Although having less currency in personal relationships and family conflict literatures, frames have been discussed extensively in conjunction with negotiation, mediation, environmental conflict, political conflict, and other areas. This literature does not yield a unified theory so much as a collection of mini-theories with similar assumptions, and even the meaning of a “frame” varies among researchers with different agendas. In the most inclusive sense, frames represent individual or collective definitions of the situation.

The above definitions highlight the holistic nature of frames, which is much of the concept’s appeal.  That is, frames integrate events, actions, and meanings so as to suggest a coherent understanding of interaction.  This is achieved, in part, by evoking meta-labels or root metaphors (implicit or explicit) that characterize the mode of interaction. Thus, frames are often conceptualized as alternative categories for defining what conflict “is”; for example, a win-lose struggle versus a process calling for compromise or a substantive disagreement versus relationship conflict.

In the most holistic sense, frames also have a narrative structure that extends beyond the immediate episode, as suggested by Weick’s conception of frames as storytelling.  Expanding on this notion, Brummans characterize a frame as a “repertoire” of categories and labels used to construct a coherent story; for example, the “story of victimhood” told by some stakeholders to environmental disputes versus the story of “power and powerlessness” told by others. Although multiple specific frames operate within and across conflict episodes, these are integrated by the grand narrative [14], [1]. 

Some approaches regard frames as relatively stable cognitive structures, such as social scripts that underlie conflict. However, communication scholars typically prefer a more fluid and interactive conception, in which frames serve as implicit metacommunication that assists the interpretation of messages and is in turn, evoked and modified through interaction. Some authors go further in conceptualizing frames as discursive structures that disputants build around conflict issues through successive turns at talk. While this approach provides a highly interactive perspective on framing, talk does not always reveal an individual’s conception of conflict. Thus, it seems appropriate to recognize both interpretive and discursive or interaction frames, with the caveat that analytic separation of the two is somewhat artificial.

Conflict is an inevitable part of close relationships and can take a negative emotional toll. It takes effort to ignore someone or be passive aggressive, and the anger or guilt we may feel after blowing up at someone is valid negative feelings. However, conflict isn’t always negative or unproductive. In fact, numerous research studies have shown that quantity of conflict in a relationship is not as important as how the conflict is handled.

It is negative when it leads to violence, undermines the communication relationship between the parties involved in the conflict, stimulates people to become uncooperative, or prevents the parties from addressing real issues or problems. When it increases communication, releases stored feelings, leads to the solution of problems, results in the growth of the relationship between parties in conflict, or improves performance. 

Coordination of meaning tends to be especially problematic in the context of interpersonal conflict, perhaps uniquely so. Further, the impacts of messages are mediated by disputant sense-making, which may occur on uneven terms. These characteristics of conflict should command the attention of communication scholars. Moreover, what is needed is not a parallel literature on cognition versus behavior or discourse versus sense-making but rather, an integrated approach to actions performed and framing processes through which actions come to be constituted, reproduced, or transformed.  

Improving your competence in dealing with conflict can yield positive effects in the real world. Since conflict is present in our personal and professional lives, the ability to manage conflict and negotiate desirable outcomes can help us be more successful at both. Whether you and your partner are trying to decide what brand of flat-screen television to buy or discussing the upcoming political election with your mother, the potential for conflict is present. In professional settings, the ability to engage in conflict management, sometimes called conflict resolution, is a necessary and valued skill. However, many professionals do not receive training in conflict management even though they are expected to do it as part of their job.

Personality conflict refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied, and a power struggle ensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include the exaggerated use of rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, emotional blackmail and flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the point of relationship breakdown and termination.