|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Conflict Studies / nota bene
Reference:
Suvorova, N.V., Gudovskii, I.V., Dulinets, T.G., Shepeleva, Y.S., Ligaev, D.A. (2025). The relationship between personality traits and behavioral styles of employees of an organization. Conflict Studies / nota bene, 1, 91–112. . https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0617.2025.1.73116
The relationship between personality traits and behavioral styles of employees of an organization
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0617.2025.1.73116EDN: YRVGSOReceived: 22-01-2025Published: 03-04-2025Abstract: A person's life is constantly accompanied by conflicts in various areas - in communication with peers, in the educational, professional environment, in sports activities. Conflicts in our life are inevitable, since they are the source of movement and development of the individual. In the description of the essential characteristics of a conflict, the underlying contradiction, the opposition of views, as well as the activity of the conflicting parties, which can manifest itself to varying degrees, are often noted. For example, the style of behavior in a conflict depends on this, which determines the effectiveness of interaction as a whole. The choice of behavior style in a conflict situation is influenced by many factors: what psychological characteristics a person has, how long the conflict lasts, what consequences the development of the conflict can lead to, how significant the conflict situation is for the opponent, what resources he has, etc. Of particular interest among the listed factors is the factor "personal characteristics", since this is an internal factor, it is more stable and determines the style of behavior in a conflict as a whole, since the conditions of the conflict, resources and goals of the conflicting parties can change in different conflict situations, and personal characteristics are quite stable. There is a need to study the relationship between the personality traits of an individual and his or her style of behavior in a conflict. The sample was taken from an organization producing repair products, where employees of different professions work: repairmen, designers, appraisers, etc. The purpose of this study is to study the relationship between personality traits and behavior style in a conflict. All respondents were male, their age ranged from 28 to 40 years. Keywords: conflict, style of behavior, personality, peculiarities, employees, organization, compromise, interaction, efficiency, communicationThis article is automatically translated.
Introduction. Human life is constantly accompanied by conflicts in various fields – in communication with peers, in the educational and professional environment, in sports activities. Modern psychology accepts their inevitability and considers them as a kind of norm of interpersonal relationships in a society where each individual has his own unique set of personal qualities, attitudes, value orientations and life experience.
Conflict in a broad sense, from a psychological point of view, is understood as "a contradiction that arises in the sphere of relationships caused by the incompatibility of views, interests, goals and needs of people."" [6, 7, 11], " the clash of opposite, incompatible tendencies in the consciousness of an individual, in interpersonal or intergroup relations, associated with acute negative experiences" [8, 9, 10].
Conflicts occur in all areas of our lives, including in the organizational sphere. Currently, many enterprises are undergoing dynamic and rapid changes in the organizational environment, which leads to an increase in the number of conflicts among the organization's employees [2]. In this regard, it is important to study the factors that provoke conflict or contribute to its "escalation", as well as those factors that should be taken into account to prevent conflict interactions.
The description of the essential characteristics of a conflict often highlights the underlying contradiction, the opposition of views, as well as the activity of the conflicting parties, which can manifest itself to varying degrees [19, 20]. For example, the style of behavior in conflict depends on this. The style of behavior in conflict is understood as "the orientation of an individual or group towards conflict, the attitude towards certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation" [12, 17, 18].
The choice of a style of behavior in a conflict situation is influenced by many factors: what psychological characteristics a person has, how long the conflict lasts, what consequences the development of the conflict can lead to, how significant the conflict situation is for the opponent, what resources he has, etc. Of particular interest among these factors is the "personality traits" factor, since it is an internal factor, it is more stable and determines the style of behavior in conflict as a whole, since the conditions of conflict, resources and goals of the conflicting parties can change in different conflict situations, and personality traits are quite stable [13, 14, 16]. R.B. Kettell also noted that personality determines human behavior, and formed personality traits are determinants of behavior in different situations.
The maximum contact between the professional and social planes of human relations in organizational conditions leads to an understanding of the importance of personal qualities along with professional ones. Conflicts directly affect the cohesion of employees and the entire team as a whole. The less employees conflict, the higher achievements can be achieved in production and in work. Based on the study of personal characteristics of employees, it is possible to carry out prevention and prevention of conflict situations in the organization (A.V. Semenikhina [16], T.A. Smatkhina [17], E.N. Chernyadyeva [18], etc.).
Review of scientific literature. The style of behavior in conflict is formed in the process of human development, under the influence of many factors, becoming a fairly stable personal characteristic by adolescence. The question arises – what influences its formation or the choice of a certain style of behavior by a person in a conflict in a particular situation? Psychological science is increasingly turning to the problem of the relationship between personality traits and behavior in conflict (N.V. Vyazova [1], A.V. Grishina [2], O.N. Gromova [3], M.L. Yesayan [4], A.S. Kuleshova [5], etc.). A number of empirical studies describe specific relationships between conflict behaviors and personality traits. For example, A.S. Kuleshova and N.I. Anchukova have identified links between the choice of a style of behavior in conflict and a pair of personality traits "altruism-egoism". The study showed that respondents with a pronounced personality trait "egoism" may be generally inclined to compromise, but even in it they adhere to a rigid behavioral style (that is, selfish people either insist on their rightness or try to find something in common in their position and the opponent's position). Respondents with a pronounced personal trait of "altruism" are more likely to be compliant and adhere to a predominant conciliatory behavioral style [5]. In the study by A.A. Samosyuk and Y.S. Smirnova, brief psychological portraits of people with different styles of behavior in conflict were compiled. "People who tend to leave in conflict are neurotic, depressive, and shy. The search for an optimal solution to a conflict characterizes people who are sociable, open, and balanced. The tendency to an aggressive type of reaction in conflict is associated with masculinity, reactive and spontaneous aggression, irritability, and extroversion of personality" [15]. In foreign literature, the problem of choosing a strategy of behavior in conflict situations is considered in the works of many authors (Kurdek L., Thomas K.W. Scott J. G., Kenneth R.) [21, 22]. We organized and conducted a study, the respondents of which were 40 male employees and 2 female employees of Profmontazh LLC. The study was commissioned by the head of the HR department due to the increased interpersonal conflicts among employees. The subject of conflicts were issues regarding the organization of work in the organization and the distribution of wages. The age of the respondents ranged from 28-40 years. The entire sample is a general collection of employees who are engineering and technical personnel (window and door installers). The survey was conducted after business hours based on the voluntary consent of the respondents. Methodology and research methods. The purpose of this study is to study the relationship between personality traits and behavior style in conflict. The subject of the study is the relationship between personal characteristics and the style of behavior in conflict among employees of the organization. We have suggested that there is a connection between personality traits and conflict behavior strategies: people who are sociable, open, and emotionally stable are more likely to choose a cooperation strategy, while people who are aggressive, impulsive, and emotionally unstable are more likely to choose a competitive strategy; people who have developed communication skills and easily establish and maintain contacts are more likely to choose a strategy of avoidance and adaptation. dreamy, compliant, impressionable, sensitive people. The descriptive method, the categorization method, the analysis method, as well as the questionnaire method using the following methods were used as the methodology of the subject area of research in this article: 1) The Freiburg personality questionnaire FPI, 2) the 16-factor questionnaire of R.B. Kettell, 3) The Thomas-Kilmann test "Determining ways to regulate conflicts". Research. The first stage of direct research included studying the personal characteristics of the organization's employees. Figures 1-6 show the results of the diagnosis of the personality characteristics of medical volunteers using the Freiburg Personality Questionnaire FPI graphically.
Figure 1. Results of the study of personal characteristics of employees: "neuroticism", "spontaneous aggressiveness"
On the Neuroticism scale, 33% of the employees surveyed have a high level: such people are excitable, can experience anxiety and irritation even for minor reasons, and often involuntarily switch between different emotions, which can cause emotional exhaustion. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 47% of employees, and a low level of neuroticism in 20% of respondents, which indicates that such people calmly and equably react to various life and professional situations, including difficulties, problems, adequately and realistically assess them, strive to be objective and rational. On the scale of "Spontaneous aggressiveness," 30% of the employees surveyed have a high level: such people have difficulty controlling their impulsive reactions, although they may be pleasant in communication, they may also show indifference to the consequences of their behavior and irresponsibility. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 43% of medical volunteers, and a low level of spontaneous aggressiveness in 27% of respondents, which indicates their restraint, responsibility, commitment, and caution in decision-making.
Figure 2. The results of the study of personal characteristics of employees: "depression", "irritability" On the scale of "Depression", 13% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people are mostly in a low mood of their owner, negatively or overly critically, gloomily assess the present, past, and future, as well as their low activity, indecision, inability to solve problems, and take responsibility for the decisions taken. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 54%, and a low level of depression in 33% of respondents, which indicates that they have a predominance of positive mood, optimism, cheerfulness, active social position, passion for ideas, although they may be too impulsive in making decisions, they may not finish what they started. On the "Irritability" scale, 30% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people are irritable, conflicted, extremely negative about compromises, and may violate norms of behavior. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 47%, and a low level of irritability in 23%, which indicates their low irritability, calmness in relation to social values, morals, norms and rules, and sufficient balance in emotions and behavior.
Figure 3. The results of the study of personal characteristics of employees: "sociability", "balance" On the Sociability scale, 40% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people are attuned to communicating with others, to constructive and pleasant interaction with them, tend to provide assistance, be attentive, and gentle. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 40%, and a low level of sociability in 20% of the respondents, which indicates their closeness in terms of communication, difficulties in establishing contact, the manifestation of "coldness" in communication, and a greater focus on individual tasks or pastime. On the scale of "Balance", 23% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people feel harmony, calmness, and follow social norms and rules. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 44%, and a low level of irritability in 23%, which indicates that they have internal conflicts and dissatisfaction.
Figure 4. The results of the study of personal characteristics of employees: "reactive aggressiveness", "shyness" According to the "Reactive aggressiveness" scale, 13% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people tend to strive to satisfy short-term needs, are selfish, power-hungry, and are ready to show aggression if there is an obstacle in the way of satisfying their desires. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 54%, and a low level of reactive aggressiveness in 33% of respondents, which indicates the opposite characteristics: such people, on the contrary, are ready to put their desires on the back burner, and in their behavior and thoughts they are guided by a certain authority. They are uninitiative, do not like to make decisions, and feel most comfortable in the position of a performer. On the "Shyness" scale, 17% of respondents have a high level, which indicates their shyness, closeness, difficulties in making choices and making decisions, and love for familiar situations and people rather than new ones. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 56%, and a low level of shyness in 27%, which indicates their determination, activity, willingness to take risks and a positive attitude towards new things.
Figure 5. The results of the study of personality traits: "openness", "extraversion-introversion" According to the "Openness" scale, 40% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people are open enough to conduct research and are sincere. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 40%, and a low level of openness in 20% of respondents, which suggests, on the contrary, that they tend to respond socially desirable in order to appear in a more plausible image. According to the "Extraversion-introversion" scale, 33% of respondents have a high level, which indicates their sociability (both a high need for communication and developed communication skills), social adaptability, and a desire for public recognition. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 44%, and the low level of the scale was in 23%, which indicates their introversion, that is, self–orientation, inner peace, moderate activity in communication, and the need for solitude.
Figure 6. Results of the study of personality traits: "emotional lability", "masculinity-femininity"
On the scale of "Emotional lability," 17% of respondents have a high level, which indicates that such people are artistic, sensual, and overly impressionable. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 50%, and a low level of emotional lability in 33% of respondents, which suggests, on the contrary, that they are practical, down-to-earth, straightforward, and focused on material values. According to the Masculinity-Femininity scale, 33% of the respondents have a high level, which indicates their realism, practicality, risk-taking, directness, and impulsiveness in decision-making. The average level of the indicator was diagnosed in 40%, and the low level of the scale was in 27%, which indicates their sensuality, tendency to introspection, psychological "gentleness", empathy. Table 1 shows the results of the diagnosis of personality traits according to the R.B. personality questionnaire. Kettela graphically.
Table 1 Results of the diagnosis of personality traits according to the R.B. personality questionnaire. Kettela
Thus, 17% of respondents have a high level of sociability (such respondents are open to communication, have developed communication skills, easily establish contacts and support them, are active in communication and are quite constructive (in a conflict situation they seek to resolve it, are active in finding a way), are focused on cooperation and high-quality interaction, are capable of compromise). 76% have an average level of sociability, and 7% have a low level of sociability (such respondents are quite secretive, withdrawn, distrustful, critical in their relationships with people, and have rather rigid attitudes, which complicate their ability to compromise). 20% have a high level of intellectual development (such respondents have developed abstract thinking, are quick-witted, trainable, and cultured). 80% have an average level of intelligence development, which indicates a fairly high level of thinking, which, however, may include rigid attitudes, not always quick, prompt problem solving. 7% of the respondents have a high level of emotional stability (such respondents are emotionally stable, restrained, calm, balanced, emotionally rigid – that is, stable in their mood, attitude, emotions). 63% have an average level of emotional stability, and 30% have a low level of development (such respondents are emotionally unstable, impulsive and irritable, act under the influence of emotions, emotionally unstable – that is, changeable in their moods, unstable in their interests). 20% have a high level of dominance development (such respondents are independent, autonomous, stubborn, persistent in achieving their goals, and may even be conflictual). 70% have an average level of dominance development and 10% have a low level (such respondents are compliant, tactful, helpful, willing to take the blame on themselves, do not know how to be effective in conflict, and are able to defend their opinions). 3% of the respondents have a high level of expressivity (such respondents are cheerful, expressive, emotional, enthusiastic, although they may treat the choice of interlocutors and communication partners too superficially and impulsively, yielding to momentary desires, sympathies). 77% have an average level of expressivity, and 20% have a low level of development (such respondents are significantly more restrained and cautious, reasonable, choose communication partners carefully, and can be quite pessimistic and worried). 17% of the respondents have a high level of development of moral normativity (such respondents consciously observe group norms and rules, tend to moralize, are conscientious, responsible, stable, balanced, have a business orientation, rational). 70% have an average level of moral normality, and 13% have a low level of development (such respondents do not make proper efforts to comply with group norms, explain this by the power of emotions, feelings, the influence of chance, circumstances, which is why they are often irresponsible, disorganized, act impulsively and unscrupulously). 73% of the respondents have an average level of courage development, and 27% have a low level (such respondents are cautious, act very carefully and even anxiously, expect failure, a trick, and therefore they are active quite rarely, prefer an individual style of activity and communication in a small group). 77% of respondents have an average level of sensitivity, and 23% have a low level of sensitivity (such respondents are practical, unsentimental, reasonable, rational, can be harsh, callous). 7% have a high level of suspicion (such respondents are egocentric, very cautious, waiting for a trick, deception, can be irritable and anxious, do not want to be responsible for the decisions they make). 80% have an average level of suspicion, and 13% have a low level of suspicion (such respondents are open, tolerant, accommodating, and compliant enough). 70% have an average level of dreaminess (such respondents tend to indulge in dreams, imagination, building illusions, and immersion in the inner world, but they are always able to "return to reality", see material opportunities, and use them), and 30% have a low level (such respondents make decisions quickly enough, focusing on external circumstances and not expecting a trick, they are practical, realistic, not prone to daydreaming and abstract reasoning). 13% of the respondents have a high level of diplomacy (such respondents are restrained, cultured, astute, able to establish communication at the diplomatic level, able to find the most "soft" way out of a conflict situation, careful and moderately cunning, prudent). 67% have an average level of diplomacy, and 20% have a low level of diplomacy (such respondents are quite naive and simple, natural, can be tactless, overly emotional and undisciplined, do not have sufficient critical thinking, insight, cannot correctly analyze the motives of their interlocutor, and therefore cannot build an effective communication strategy with him). 7% of the respondents have a high level of anxiety (such respondents are highly anxious, vulnerable, sensitive, experience severe anxiety, including for minor reasons, and are prone to feelings of guilt). 63% have an average level of anxiety, and 30% have a low level of anxiety (such respondents, on the contrary, are quite careless and arrogant, do not experience anxiety, are cool and calm, confident in themselves). 3% of respondents have a high level of radicalism (such respondents have a positive attitude towards the new, however, having developed analytical thinking, they are critical of it, do not believe "just like that", authorities, form their opinion based on the results of analytical mental activity). 84% have an average level of radicalism, while 13% have a low level of radicalism (such respondents are committed to traditions, are cautious about new things in their lives and work, are focused on specific real activities, and tend to moralize, which may be due to narrow interests). 7% have a high level of nonconformism (such respondents are independent, independent, do not accept the group's opinion on faith and may even resist it, strive for leadership, dominance, and have their own opinion on everything). 73% have an average level of nonconformity, and 20% have a low level of development (such respondents are quite dependent on the opinions of their loved ones or the group to which they belong, find it difficult to make decisions individually, are not independent and need constant social approval). 3% of the respondents have a high level of emotional stability (such respondents have a strong will, are restrained, are able to control their emotions and behavior, are persistent and purposeful). 70% have an average level of emotional stability, and 27% have a low level of development (such respondents have difficulties in emotional self-control, which is reflected in the impulsiveness of their behavior, guidance of their actions by momentary desires, and indiscipline in general). 7% of employees have a high level of tension (such respondents are restless, tense, irritable, frustrated, psychologically collected and are in anticipation of threats, failures). 73% have an average level of tension, and 20% have a low level of tension (such respondents are calm and even apathetic, unperturbed). It can be concluded that the psychological description of some of the studied personal qualities directly indicates the typical behavior of a person in a conflict situation: for example, respondents with a high level of sociability in a conflict situation seek to resolve it, are active in finding a way, are focused on cooperation and quality interaction, are capable of compromise, and therefore a correlation is possible. This personal quality is associated with such strategies of behavior in conflict as "cooperation", "compromise". Respondents with a high level of dominance development are independent, autonomous, stubborn, persistent in achieving their goals, conflictual, and therefore a correlation is possible between this personal quality and such a strategy of behavior in conflict as "competition." Respondents with a low level of dominance development, on the contrary, are compliant, tactful, helpful, ready to take the blame on themselves, do not know how to be effective in conflict, are able to defend their opinions, and therefore a correlation is possible between this personal quality and such a strategy of behavior in conflict as "adaptation". At the second stage of the main part of the study, the strategies of behavior in conflict among the employees of the organization were studied. The average severity scores of each strategy on all scales were calculated, and they are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Average scores of employees' conflict behavior strategies.
Figure 7 indicates that respondents generally implement quite diverse strategies of behavior in conflict, but tend to be more competitive, which is expressed in an active and even aggressive position in the conflict, in an effort to get the better of the opponent no matter what and impose their point of view, their outcome of the situation, in readiness to apply a variety of ways to influence to achieve your goal, from which it is impossible to retreat. Compromise strategies, in which both opponents wish to end the conflict with partial concessions, and adaptation strategies, understood as forced or voluntary abandonment of the struggle and surrender of their positions, are somewhat less pronounced. Even less pronounced is the strategy of cooperation, which is considered the most effective strategy in most situations and involves a constructive discussion of the subject of the conflict, perceiving the opponent not as an opponent, but as an ally in finding a solution. The least "used" strategy of behavior in conflict among employees is avoidance or avoidance of conflict. In order to identify the links between personality traits and conflict behavior strategies among employees of the organization, a correlation analysis was performed using the Spearman criterion. Tables 2 and 3 show the results.
Table 2. Correlation analysis of the relationship between personality traits according to the Freiburg Personality Questionnaire FPI and conflict behavior strategies.
Table 2 shows that positive correlations have been identified between: 1. The strategy of behavior is "Competition" and such personality traits as "neuroticism", "spontaneous aggressiveness", "depressiveness", "irritability", "reactive aggressiveness". 2. The strategy of behavior "Cooperation" and such personal characteristics as "sociability", "openness", "extraversion-introversion" 3 The "Compromise" behavior strategy and such personality traits as "sociability", "balance", "extraversion-introversion". Negative correlational links between: 1. The strategy of behavior is "Competition" and such personal characteristics as "sociability", "balance", "depressiveness", "irritability", "extraversion-introversion", "emotional lability". 2. The "Cooperation" behavior strategy and personality traits such as "neuroticism." 3. The "Compromise" behavior strategy and such personality traits as "neuroticism", "spontaneous aggressiveness", "depressiveness", "irritability", "reactive aggressiveness", "masculinity-femininity". Thus, the interrelationships between personal characteristics and strategies of behavior in conflict among the employees of the organization are revealed.: 1. The strategy of competition in conflict is chosen by respondents who are impulsive, irritable, rather pessimistic about reality, not too eager to communicate, even introverted, impulsive, emotionally unstable, emotionally unstable. 2. The strategy of cooperation in conflict is chosen by sociable, sincere, calm, balanced, reacting to various life and professional situations, including difficulties, problems, adequately and realistically assessing them, striving to be objective, rational. 3. The strategy of compromise in conflict is chosen by employees who are sociable, balanced, calmly reacting to various life and professional situations, including difficulties, problems, adequately and realistically assessing them, striving to be objective, rational, non-aggressive, not irritable.
Table 3. Correlation analysis of the relationship between personality traits according to R.B. Kettel's questionnaire and conflict behavior strategies.
Table 3 shows that positive correlations have been identified between: 1. The strategy of behavior is "Competition" and such personal qualities as "dominance", "anxiety", "tension". 2. The behavior strategy of "Cooperation" and such personal qualities as "sociability", "diplomacy". 3. The strategy of behavior is "Compromise" and such personal qualities as "sociability", "emotional stability", "diplomacy", "self-control". 4. The strategy of behavior is "Avoidance" and such a personal quality as "daydreaming." Negative correlational links between: 1. The strategy of behavior is "Competition" and such personal qualities as "emotional stability", "self-control". 2. The strategy of behavior "Cooperation" and such personal qualities as "dominance". 3. The strategy of behavior is "Compromise" and personal qualities such as "dominance", "anxiety", "tension". 4. The strategy of behavior is "Avoidance" and such personal qualities as "courage", "radicalism", "nonconformism". 5. The strategy of behavior is "Adaptation" and such personal qualities as "dreaminess", "diplomacy". Discussion of the results. Thus, we have identified some relationships between personality traits and behavior style in a conflict situation. For example, it was found that the strategy of competition in a conflict situation is chosen by independent, autonomous, stubborn, persistent employees in achieving their goals, which correlates with the research results of T.A. Smakhtina, E.N. Chernyadyeva [17, 18]. It was also found that the strategy of cooperation in conflict is chosen by employees who are open to communication, have developed communication skills, and easily establish contacts, which correlates with previous research conducted by Nikonenko N. V. [10]. The results of the study also correlate with the results of foreign studies, in which it was found that the strategy of compromise in conflict is chosen by people with developed communication skills who easily establish and maintain contacts; and the strategy of avoidance and adaptation is chosen by dreamy, impressionable, sensitive people (Kurdek L. [21] Thomas K.W. [22]).
Conclusions. Thus, the interrelationships between personal characteristics and strategies of behavior in conflict are revealed.: 1. The strategy of competition in conflict is chosen by independent, autonomous, stubborn, persistent in achieving their goals, anxious, restless, tense, irritable, frustrated, psychologically collected and awaiting threats, failures, having difficulty in self-regulation of their emotional state and behavior. 2. The strategy of cooperation in conflict is chosen by people who are open to communication, have developed communication skills, easily establish and maintain contacts, are active in communication and are quite constructive (in a conflict situation they strive to resolve it, are active in finding a way), capable of compromise, restrained, insightful, able to establish communication at the diplomatic level, able to to find the most "gentle" way out of a conflict situation, including those who are ready to give in to something, because they are not inclined to be assertive in conflict. 3. The strategy of compromise in conflict is chosen by people who are open to communication, have developed communication skills, easily establish and maintain contacts, are active in communication and constructive enough (in a conflict situation they strive to resolve it, are active in finding a way), capable of compromise, restrained, insightful, able to establish communication at the diplomatic level, able to to find the most "gentle" way out of a conflict situation, including those who are ready to give in to anything, because they are not inclined to be assertive in conflict, emotionally balanced and in control of their behavior, not prone to impulsive actions. 4. The strategy of avoiding conflict is chosen by dreamy, compliant, impressionable, sensitive, prone to artistic perception of the world, empathic, cautious, acting very carefully and even anxiously, expecting failure, a trick, socially passive, prone to moralize, dependent on the opinions of loved ones or the group to which they belong, difficult to make decisions individually They are well-off, low-income, and in need of constant social approval. 5. The strategy of adaptation in conflict is chosen by dreamy, compliant, impressionable, sensitive, prone to artistic perception of the world, empathic, rather naive, natural, not having sufficiently developed critical thinking, insight, unable to correctly analyze the motives of their interlocutor, and therefore unable to build an effective strategy of communication with him. Conclusion. A person, being a part of society, entering into various relationships, cannot completely avoid conflicts, but he can, by increasing his level of knowledge, choose more constructive strategies and behaviors in a particular conflict situation. A person in conflict behaves in a special way, according to his style of behavior in conflict, which is understood as a relatively stable set of goals and actions, operations and reactions, conscious or unconscious by a person, aimed at resolving the conflict or getting out of it. The analysis made it possible to conclude that the choice of a style of behavior in conflict is determined by a variety of factors, among which personality traits occupy a leading place. A study was organized and conducted among 42 employees of Profmontazh LLC. As a result of the research, it was found that there are relationships between personality traits and behavior in conflict: people who are sociable, open, and emotionally stable are more likely to choose a cooperation strategy; people who are aggressive, impulsive, and emotionally unstable are more likely to choose a competitive strategy. The strategy of compromise in conflict is chosen by sociable, balanced, calmly reacting to various life and professional situations, including difficulties, problems; the strategy of avoidance in conflict is chosen by dreamy, compliant, impressionable, sensitive, inclined to artistic perception of the world; the strategy of adaptation is chosen by compliant, impressionable, rather naive, natural, not having a sufficiently developed critical thinking, insight, unable to correctly analyze the motives of their interlocutor, and therefore unable to build an effective communication strategy with him.Thus, our assumption was confirmed. The results of this study can be applied to the prevention and prevention of conflicts in the organization, to build effective relationships between employees and to create a favorable psychological climate in the team. The results of the study can also be used in the selection of personnel and building a strategy for its development. Based on the results of the study, the head of the enterprise should make personnel decisions related to the placement of personnel (including the dismissal of some employees who, due to their personal characteristics, provoke conflict), which will contribute to improving the organizational climate in the team. References
1. Vyazova, N. V. (2019). Features of the influence of character on the behavioral strategies of the subject of the conflict. Gaudeamus, 2(40), 43-55.
2. Grishina, A. V. (2023). The relationship between alexithymia and behavior style in conflict . Scientific notes. Electronic scientific journal of Kursk State University, 2(66), 298-304. 3. Gromova, O. N. (2007). Personal characteristics of the emergence of conflicts, 383-406. Samara: Publishing House "Bakhrakh-M. 4. Yesayan, M. L. (2021). The influence traits on the choice of behavior strategies in conflict. Actual problems of mass consciousness research: Proceedings of the 6th International Scientific and Practical Conference (ðp. 84-90). Moscow: Pero Publishing House. 5. Kuleshova, A. S. (2022). The influence of personality traits on the behavior of employees in an organization in conflict. Innovations of the young for scientific, technical and socio-economic development of the Russian Far East: Abstracts of the 80th Interuniversity Student Scientific and Practical Conference. Khabarovsk: Far Eastern State Transport University. 6. Kyulbakova, M.A. (2020). Study of the influence of self-esteem on the choice of behavior in a conflict situation among students . Psychological health of the individual: theory and practice: Collection of articles from the All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation. (ðð. 171-174). Stavropol: North Caucasus Federal University. 7. Lipskaya, T. A. (2022). Stylistic features of behavior in conflict of younger adolescents. Problems of modern pedagogical education, 76-3, 288-292. 8. Lobza, O. V. (2020). Styles of behavior in conflict and their relationship with personal characteristics of teachers . Modern science: current problems of theory and practice. Series: Cognition, 3, 72-78. 9. Nasurova, Z. A. (2023). The concept of conflict in psychology. Bulletin of the Medical Institute, 1(23), 99-104. 10. Nikonenko, N. V. (2017). The relationship between personality traits and behavior style in conflict. Science, education, society: trends and development prospects, 5, 224-226. 11. Panina, E. A. (2015). Factors influencing the choice of behavior strategy in conflict . Psychological support for the safety of the educational environment of the school in the context of the introduction of new educational and professional standards, 6, 66-69. 12. Petrova, E. G. (2015). Features of the choice of behavior strategy in conflict . Bulletin of the Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekhov, 2, 283-288. 13. Polukhina, A. S. (2020). Gender features of behavior in a conflict situation. Humanitarian treatise, 77, 19-21. 14. Psychological aspects of communication: a teaching aid (2023): compiled by A. A. Yarmonova.-Voronezh: VGAS. 15. Samosyuk, A. A. (2021). Personality characteristics of subjects with different types of response to conflict. Social Psychology: issues of theory and practice: Proceedings of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference in memory of M.Yu. Kondratiev (Ðð. 492-494). Moscow: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education. 16. Semenikhina, V. A. (2021). Conflict and behavior strategies in a conflict situation. School of Science, 4, 48-49. 17. Smakhtina, T. A. (2020). Personality traits and behavior in conflict. E-Scio, 9, 660-663. 18. Chernyadyeva, E. N. (2019). Management conflicts, Informio, 1, 12-18. 19. Shangina, N. V. (2016). Questionnaire of conflict management styles of K. Thomas-R. Kilmann-Russian-language version: methodological manual: Ekaterinburg: Ural Institute of Practical Psychology. 20. Yuferova, M. A. (2020). The relationship between gender identity and personality behavior in a conflict situation. Integration in psychology: theory, methodology, practice: Proceedings of the III national scientific and practical conference with international participation, Yaroslavl (ðð. 270-275): Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky. 21. Kurdek, L. (2024). Conflict resolution in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 705-722. 22. Thomas, K.W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation. M.D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Third Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2025 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
