Negative consequences of unemployment Unemployment is an extremely negative socio-economic phenomenon that has bad influence on the state of the economy as a whole. As a result: shortfall in tax payments to the budget, a decrease in GDP, an increase in crime

How can you eliminate the negative effects caused by anger? Every time you lose your temper while arguing with someone, you are hitting them. If this person is psychologically more mature than you, he will react to this correctly. But more often than not, the pain is hard to forget, and you

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 and came to its present state. So what is social conflict?

This is a collision different parts society, due to the contradictions that have arisen. Moreover, it cannot be said that social conflict always leads to negative consequences because it isn't. Constructively overcoming and resolving such contradictions allows the parties to get closer, learn something, and society to develop. But only if both sides are determined to take a rational approach and look for a way out.

The concept of conflict in society was of interest to researchers long before the emergence of sociology as such. The English philosopher Hobbes was rather negative about this. He pointed out that some kind of conflicts would constantly occur within the society, the natural state, in his opinion, was "the war of all against all."

But not everyone agreed with him. Collision issues were actively explored by Spencer at the end of the 19th century. He considered that we are talking about a natural process, as a result of which the best remain, as a rule. Considering social conflicts and ways to resolve them, the thinker brought the 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 the class struggle is inevitable. For him, the functions of social conflict are closely connected with the redistribution of wealth. However, critics of the theory of this researcher 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. In addition, here the value of a single person turned out to be downplayed.

If we talk about the basic concepts related to modern conflictology (which has even taken shape as a separate science, which indicates great importance question), then we can distinguish the teachings of Coser, Dahrendorf and Boulding. The theory of social conflict in the former is built around the inevitability of social inequality, which generates tension. Which leads to clashes. In addition, Coser points out that the struggle can begin when there is a contradiction between ideas about what should be and reality. Finally, the scientist does not bypass the limited number of values, the rivalry between different members of society for power, influence, resources, status, and so on.

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

Boulding also has his own concept of conflict. The scientist suggests that it is possible to isolate something in common that exists in any confrontation. In his opinion, the structure of social conflict is subject 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 it, he understands the situation when both parties (or more participants) take positions that cannot be fully reconciled with the interests and desires of each other. 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, the behavior of the participant.

Boulding suggests that the consequences of social conflict in a particular 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 social conflict the situation is now in order to understand what will or may be at the next stage.

Further development of the theory

At present, social scientists are actively studying social conflict and ways to resolve it, because today it is one of the most urgent and pressing problems. Thus, the premises of 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 are simply hurt by religious feelings (which often also has its significance), but upon closer examination, it turns out that there are enough reasons.

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

But in reality, the basis for a serious reaction is a long-accumulating tension. It can be compared to an avalanche, where snow constantly accumulated. And just one push, a sharp sound, a blow in the wrong place is enough for a 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 the confrontation are considered. 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 to resolve social conflicts are of increasing importance. They are essential to the survival of society as a whole.

Classification of social conflicts

As already established, the issue under study 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, give yourself 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. They are largely devoted to dystopia. Finally, from the point of view of the social science study of the material, post-apocalyptic literature is of considerable interest. There, often the causes of social conflicts are studied after the fact, that is, after everything has happened.

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

The danger of nuclear war should not be underestimated either. 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 a lot depends on what paths humanity will take next. And what methods of resolving social conflicts it will use, destructive or constructive. A lot depends on this, and it's not just about big words.

So let's get back to 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 a dialogue, and also understands why this is generally necessary in specific situations.

We can say that in the end people gain experience that they can pass on to future generations. For example, once humanity faced the legalization of slavery and came to the conclusion that it was unacceptable. Now, at least at the state level, there is no such problem, such a practice is outlawed.

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

However, the typology of social conflicts does not stop there. There is another division as well. For example, short-term and protracted are considered by duration. The latter, in most cases, have more serious causes and consequences, although such a relationship is far from always traced.

There is also a division according to the total number of participants. In a separate group are allocated internal, that is, those that occur within the personality. 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 matter of psychology and psychiatry. However, to the same extent that each individual is able to influence others, to the same extent such contradictions will cause problems in society as a whole. After all, society as such consists of individuals. Therefore, the importance of such problems should not be underestimated. Next come interpersonal conflicts, clashes between individual individuals. And the next level is already group.

From the point of view of orientation, it is worth considering horizontal, that is, problems between equal participants(representatives of one group), vertical (subordinate and boss), as well as mixed. 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 the 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 a school against another, etc., regional, which develop in a single area, local (also a locality, only more, say, the territory of one country). And finally, the largest 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, one often combines with others. Finally, in terms of content, production, everyday, economic, political, etc. problems are considered. But in general, one confrontation rarely affects only one particular aspect.

The study of social conflicts shows that it is quite possible to manage them, they can be prevented, they should be controlled. 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 situation.

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

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

1. Resource allocation. 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 for the maximum receipt of resources and overestimate the significance of their work, the distribution of resources almost inevitably leads to all sorts of conflicts.

2. Interdependence of tasks. The possibility of conflict exists wherever, in the performance of its functions, one person (group) depends on another person (group). In view of the fact that any organization is a system consisting of a number of interdependent elements - departments or people, if one of them does not work adequately, as well as if their activities are not coordinated enough, the interdependence of tasks can cause conflict.

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

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

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

6. Poor communications. Lack, distortion, and sometimes an excess of information can serve as a cause, effect, and catalyst of conflict. In the latter case, poor communication exacerbates the conflict, making it difficult for the participants to understand each other and the situation as a whole.

This classification of the causes of the conflict can be used in its practical diagnosis, but in general it is rather abstract. R. Dahrendorf offers a more specific classification of the causes of the conflict. 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 show up as imperfections.

• communication structure: lack, distortion or inconsistency of information, weakness of contacts between management and ordinary employees, distrust and inconsistency of actions between them due to imperfection or disruption of communications, etc.;
• role structure: inconsistency 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: the disproportion of various departments that violates the general rhythm of work, the duplication of their activities, the lack of effective control and responsibility, the conflicting aspirations of formal and informal groups in the organization, etc.;
• power structures: disproportion 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. Unhealthy or dangerous working conditions, unhealthy ecological environment, bad relations in the team and with management, dissatisfaction with the content of work, etc. - all this also creates fertile ground for the emergence of conflicts.

5. Distribution relations. Remuneration in the form of wages, bonuses, rewards, social privileges, etc. not only serves as a means of satisfying the diverse needs of people, but is also perceived as an indicator of social prestige and recognition from the leadership. The cause of the conflict may turn out to be not so much the absolute value of payment, but the distribution relations in the team, evaluated by workers in terms of their fairness.

6. Differences in identification. They are manifested in the tendency of employees to identify themselves mainly with their group (division) 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 large personal significance of such groups and the issues addressed in them, group interests and group egoism. Causes of this type often determine conflicts between different departments, as well as between individual teams and the center, the leadership of the organization.

7. The desire of the organization to expand and increase its significance. This trend is reflected in the well-known Parkinson's law, according to which every organization seeks to expand its staff, resources and influence, regardless of the amount of work performed. At the heart of the expansion trend lies the interest of each unit, and above all, real and potential leaders, in obtaining new, including higher and more prestigious positions, resources, power, and authority. On the way to the implementation of the tendency to expand, there are usually similar or restraining positions of other departments and management (the center), which tries to limit aspirations and keep the power, control functions and resources of the organization mainly at home. As a result of this kind of relationship, conflicts arise.

8. Difference of starting positions. This may be a different level of education, qualifications and values ​​of the staff, 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 units and, ultimately, to conflicts.

The last three reasons characterize mainly interorganizational conflicts. AT real life conflicts are often generated not by one, but by several reasons, each of which, in turn, is modified depending on the specific situation. However, this does not remove the need to know the causes and sources of conflicts for constructive use and management.

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

Negative Consequences of the Conflict

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

• destabilization of the organization, generation of chaotic and anarchic processes, reduced 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 the participants in the conflict with being in the organization, growth of frustrations, depressions, stresses, etc. and, as a result, a decrease in labor productivity, an increase in staff turnover;
• an increase in emotionality and irrationality, hostility and aggressive behavior, distrust of management and others;
• weakening opportunities for communication and cooperation with opponents in the future;
• distracting participants in the conflict from solving the problems of the organization and fruitless waste of their strength, energy, resources and time to fight each other.

In contrast to the functionalists, the proponents of the sociological approach to conflicts (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 are functional, positive results for the organization:

• initiating change, renewal, progress. The new is always the negation of the old, and since certain people always stand behind both new and old ideas and forms of organization, any renewal is impossible without conflicts;
• articulation, clear articulation and expression of interests publicizing the real positions of the parties on a particular issue. This allows you to see the urgent problem more clearly and creates fertile ground for its solution;
• mobilization of attention, interest and resources for solving problems and, as a result, saving the organization's time and money. Very often, urgent issues, especially those that concern the entire organization, are not resolved until a conflict arises, because in a 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 sharp questions;
• the formation of a sense of belonging among the participants in the conflict to the decision taken as a result of it, which facilitates its implementation;
• encouraging more thoughtful and informed action in order to prove their case;
• 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 disadvantage 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. Competitive fair competition enhances the mutual respect and trust necessary for further cooperation;
• relaxation of psychological tension in relations between people, a clearer clarification of their interests and positions;
• overcoming the traditions of groupthink, conformity, "syndrome of humility" and the development of free-thinking, the individuality of the worker. As a result of this, the ability of the staff to develop original ideas, to find the best ways to solve the problems of the organization increases;
• involvement of the usually passive part of employees in solving organizational problems. This contributes to the personal development of employees and serves to achieve the goals of the organization;
• identification of informal groups, their leaders and smaller groupings, which can be used by the leader to improve management efficiency;
• development of the participants in the conflict of skills and abilities relatively painless solution of problems that arise in the future;
• gain group cohesion in case of intergroup conflicts. As 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. An external conflict is able to extinguish internal strife, the causes of which often disappear over time, lose their relevance, sharpness and are forgotten.

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