**2. Conflict analysis: causes, background, escalation and peculiarities**

If we investigate the following assumption in more detail, we should suppose that, first of all, there is no doubt that conflict management process depends on a number of value-related, epistemological, organizational and social elements as a sequential exchange of information and opinions that connects all groups of individuals in a dynamic system in space and time which requires comprehensive analysis. In addition to this, the process of creating favorable opportunities for information exchange between actors in the organization is based on the implementation of certain modeled processes and programs.

Roethlisberger, one of the founders of the "human relations" school, once remarked [5] that an organization is not only a means to fulfill economic goals but also it is an organization of people, in which they strive to achieve their dreams and aspirations. This definitely highlights the fact that in a situation where there is a strong urge to achieve personal goals, there is competition and that means the lack of resources, and that, in its turn, leads to contradictions.

Lewis Coser pronounces the following [6] "The decision-makers are engaged in maintaining and, if possible, strengthening the organizational structures through and in which they exercise power and influence. Whatever conflicts occur within these structures, will appear to them to be dysfunctional. Firmly wedded to the existing order by interest and sentiment, the decision-maker tends to view departures from this order as the result of psychological malfunctioning, and to explain conflict behavior as the consequence of such psychological factors. He will therefore be more likely to concern himself with 'tensions' or with 'stresses' and 'strains' than with those aspects of conflict behavior that might indicate pressures for changing basic institutional arrangements. Also, decision-makers are more likely to consider the dysfunctions of conflict for the total structure, without giving attention to the functions of conflict for particular groups or strata within it".

Tjosvold rightly states [7] that "just working, managing and living in any organization automatically means being in conflict". The problem of conflict management in social and political organizations has been covered in many different works by various authors. They all treat an organization as a complex body, that includes not only individuals, with all their moral sets of values, statuses and interests, but also different social institutions, whose goal is to take the best place in organizational structure, to change the existing order and the relationship order in this organization. Although the individual aspects of political communications have been the subject matter of many studies, there is still a definite lack of topical conceptual proposals that would make it possible to analyze all the aspects of the investigated phenomenon, its specifics and trends in the current conditions. In the case of communication interactions with the naturally inherent elements and characteristics of social communication, we may refer to human factors that distort the perception of communicated messages. Negentropy or negative entropy refers to the case when, in spite of all of the distortions and missing information, an incomplete/distorted message is understood by the receiver due to his discerning ability. All the above mentioned also leads to all kinds of tension, that in its turn evolves into conflicts.

Investigating theoretical framework of organizational communicative scenarios, the Dutch researchers Bordewijk and Kaam [7] derived a four-term logical matrix of models of alternative kinds of information flow. The first model is called the broadcasting (allocution) model: it is typical non-reversible communication, propagation of information from one person (center) to many others at the same time. The second model is the dialog model of direct communication of individuals without a center and intermediaries. This model makes it possible to choose the time, place and subject of information exchange. The third model is the consulting model, where an individual at the periphery of a communication sends selective requests for information to a large data-storage center. The fourth model is the registration model, which is the opposite of the previous model. In this model, the center asks for and receives information from a peripheral source, processes the data that is received and forms a uniform narrative that is transmitted to the individual. Moreover, the center has more control over information traffic than the individual at the periphery of the communication network. However, we have to admit that the presented models make it possible to view the formal process of using information in communication process rather as some trade and practical activity than consider potential patterns of conflict resolution.

and opinions that connects all groups of individuals in a dynamic system in space and time which requires comprehensive analysis. In addition to this, the process of creating favorable opportunities for information exchange between actors in the organization is based on the

Roethlisberger, one of the founders of the "human relations" school, once remarked [5] that an organization is not only a means to fulfill economic goals but also it is an organization of people, in which they strive to achieve their dreams and aspirations. This definitely highlights the fact that in a situation where there is a strong urge to achieve personal goals, there is competition and that means the lack of resources, and that, in its turn, leads to contradictions. Lewis Coser pronounces the following [6] "The decision-makers are engaged in maintaining and, if possible, strengthening the organizational structures through and in which they exercise power and influence. Whatever conflicts occur within these structures, will appear to them to be dysfunctional. Firmly wedded to the existing order by interest and sentiment, the decision-maker tends to view departures from this order as the result of psychological malfunctioning, and to explain conflict behavior as the consequence of such psychological factors. He will therefore be more likely to concern himself with 'tensions' or with 'stresses' and 'strains' than with those aspects of conflict behavior that might indicate pressures for changing basic institutional arrangements. Also, decision-makers are more likely to consider the dysfunctions of conflict for the total structure, without giving attention to the functions of

Tjosvold rightly states [7] that "just working, managing and living in any organization automatically means being in conflict". The problem of conflict management in social and political organizations has been covered in many different works by various authors. They all treat an organization as a complex body, that includes not only individuals, with all their moral sets of values, statuses and interests, but also different social institutions, whose goal is to take the best place in organizational structure, to change the existing order and the relationship order in this organization. Although the individual aspects of political communications have been the subject matter of many studies, there is still a definite lack of topical conceptual proposals that would make it possible to analyze all the aspects of the investigated phenomenon, its specifics and trends in the current conditions. In the case of communication interactions with the naturally inherent elements and characteristics of social communication, we may refer to human factors that distort the perception of communicated messages. Negentropy or negative entropy refers to the case when, in spite of all of the distortions and missing information, an incomplete/distorted message is understood by the receiver due to his discerning ability. All the above mentioned also leads to all kinds of tension, that in its turn evolves into conflicts. Investigating theoretical framework of organizational communicative scenarios, the Dutch researchers Bordewijk and Kaam [7] derived a four-term logical matrix of models of alternative kinds of information flow. The first model is called the broadcasting (allocution) model: it is typical non-reversible communication, propagation of information from one person (center) to many others at the same time. The second model is the dialog model of direct communication of individuals without a center and intermediaries. This model makes it possible to choose the time, place and subject of information exchange. The third model is the consulting

implementation of certain modeled processes and programs.

150 Management of Information Systems

conflict for particular groups or strata within it".

For the reason that, while dealing with conflict any person is bound to make a decision (including an ethical one) more reflectory than reflexively, one has to take into consideration the fact that there are obstacles such as social and individual typical reactions in the way of researching and professional interference into social conflicts. These reactions clearly display the level of consciousness and the extent of consciousness in reflexive thinking of an individual. Let us take a moment to present the most important ones.

Conflict phobia is a fear of any conflict at all. Some people believe that all conflicts are equally dangerous, and the person who demonstrates a conflict-oriented type of behavior should be isolated from human society. These kind of people tend to overload the situation with their own speculations and they end up making the problem roughly the size of an elephant in doing this.

People who tend to perceive conflicts inadequately. They are also in the habit of seeing a conflict where there is none at all, but unlike the previous category, they are not afraid of conflicts. They start to actively fight for what they consider right, but that actually has no relation to what is really happening. These sort of people are predisposed to turn any conflict into a situation of either victory or defeat.

People are inclined to ignore the conflict altogether. They seem to be totally unaware of it even being the very eye of it. By sort of wearing, specially devised blinkers, they do not realize that minor unimportant conflicts will sooner or later grow into unruly overwhelming processes featuring definitely destructive quality.

Shainov has a very interesting idea of comparing work-related conflicts to a fire [8]. They both possess two very similar features: first, it is easier to prevent one then to deal with one when it is already in process; second, the later one starts to fight it, the harder it is to put an end to it. For example, if the problem originated as a confrontation of two individuals and was not resolved, it could eventually lead to the whole organization splitting into two war parties. To form conflict resolution ability, one is supposed to overcome two opposing complexes of defensive conflict behavior: conflict avoiding and conflict pursuing.

If conflict avoiding predominates, then this type of person is most afraid to "lose his/her face" and hence the person is scared of facing any contradictions and the discussions that may follow. For example, the manager would rather avoid either interfering into a difficult situation or discussing essential problems as he would rather "weather the storm" hoping it would "blow off" eventually. Part of conflict scare is also communication that lacks feedback and a personal point of view and this sort of communication could be best described as unsure and vague.

If pursuing a conflict prevails, then all the contradictions, whether being imaginary or real, provoke ego-centric reaction and striving to aggressively defend one's own ego from imaginary and real threats. In case any real working problems arise, a manager with a conflict pursuing complex can easily start blaming other people, could use threats and would rather manipulate other people's a sense of guilt. While discussing the situation, the manager would perceive any disagreement or a rush word as a threat to his/her own status, he/she then would use cruel irony and sarcasm, and so with his/her own reactions would ease the dynamic tension in the conflict, and eventually shift from discussing the problem itself to personal opposition.

Conflict resolution ability is an alternative to these two extremes in ego-centric behavior and is expressed through a set of motivational, cognitive, emotional, will-power, behavioral and communicative characteristics: either perceiving a wide range of conflict manifestations: emotions, images, words, actions "both in yourself and other people" as soon and as clear as possible, without either intensified taking all the necessary measures to promote non-escalation; or assertive communication that is aimed at explaining and expressing one's own point of view, clearing all the discrepancies and holding discussions; judging one's own personal potential in conflict resolution clearly and readiness to turn to third parties for help, if necessary.

Organizational conflict is defined in modern literature is not just any conflict of interests that happens within the organization but also the one that is caused by breaking rules of behavior or sets of values, that happens due to contradictions of formal organizational standards and the real behavior of the people within that group that is aimed at fulfilling the interests of the parties involved on the basis of opposition. These types of conflicts are tightly connected with the organization itself and its working conditions.

The most widely spread reason of conflicts is inequality because of the position in imperatively coordinated associations in which some people manage and rule, while the others have to submit and follow the commands and orders. Conflicts are defined by people's consciousness, contradiction in personal and public values, difference in expectations, practical intentions and actions and misunderstanding each other's actions; conflicts are also caused by all sorts of misapprehensions, logical mistakes and a wide range of semantic difficulties in conducting communication, either lack or distortion of information. Incompatibility in the claims of the parties involved, while having to deal with restricted means, could be called a universal source of conflicts. A conflict is a clash and confrontation of individuals and groups that is characterized by inflicting mutual damage that is aimed at protecting one's real and/or imaginary interests.

Conflict at a workplace as Antsupov and Shipilov remarked [9] has four basic functions: first, it balances personal, group and company interests. Sometimes it strengthens the bonds between employees as they unite against one common problem or one common opponent; second, they indicate that something is wrong within the staff; third, they promote innovations and creativity, as conflicts help the company to develop economically, socially and spiritually; fourth, they change the climate within the organization, encouraging trust, respect and authority.

All the participants in these types of conflict could be roughly divided into three groups that include: (1) a boss and an employee, (2) two employees and (3) groups. The first is actually the mostly wide spread, constituting about 53% of the total number of organizational conflicts. As for the second type, it has a very peculiar distinction. Employees tend to have more disagreements if they are quite close at a career ladder. The farther they are at a job hierarchy, the less likely they are to come into conflict.

Work-related conflicts are also gender oriented more than it could be evident at a glance. Women tend to have more conflicts over personal matters at work, such as choosing vacation time or customizing a workspace, whereas men are more inclined to disagree over work matters, such as dividing the workload. There are other peculiarities that mark organizational conflicts. For example, competitiveness that is inherent to most jobs can become a very bad stimulant, while resolving conflicts at a work place. Also, some conflicts at a work place are not actually job-related but are essentially personal ones that are just masked. This makes them harder to pinpoint and resolve.

Organizational conflicts actually present a big problem. It may prove to be more serious than it seems at a glance. Studies have shown that the factor that has more effect on job efficiency is the person's mood and it in its turn is mostly affected by relations with other people. It turns out, that healthy working environment is the key to a company's prosperity as a whole. Dorofeev estimated that up to 20% of the working time management spends solving conflicts at a workplace [10].
