Upload
truongduong
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCINIENT REMISE
ED 120- 906 'EA 008.031
_AUTHOR ,A_,- Derr, C. Brooklyn__TITLE- Major Cause! of Organizational Conflict: Diagnosis .
.
for ActiohwAforking Paper, , .
INSTITUTION- Naval Postgraduate School, Ndnterey, Calif._REPORT_ JO- NPS-SSDr-P75062pus DATE Jun 75 .
NOTE- 84p..3
EDRS PRICE NP-S0.83 MC=44.67 Plus Postage . -
DESCRIPTORS Bibliographies; Conflict; *conflict Resolution;Environgent; Individual Characteristios; -
Interpersonal Relationship; *Management;*Organiiation; -Organizational. Development;- . . ______
*Organizational Theories; *Organizations (Groups);Role Conflict; Self 'Esteem,
IDENTIPIERS Chntingency Theory
1BSTR1CTSix major causes .of organizational conflict
(individual stress, role conflict, power struggles, differentiation,interdependence, and external pressures) are ,delineated; implicationsfor managing these conflicts using collaboration, bargaining, andpower plays are pointed out; a conflict management paradig pointingout which mode of conflict management wor:.s best for which cause ispresented; and literature on organiiational conflict management isreferenced. (luthor /IRT)
^ -
*********************************************************************i*Documents acquired by EAIC,inclade .any iniormal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. ERIC cakes every effort ** to 'obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless' items of -marginal ** reproducibility ate often encountered:and. this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available t* via the EPIC, Document Reproduction Service. (EDRS). EDRS is not '*
* responsible for the quality of the original documant. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS. are the best that can be cad. from the original, ************************************************************************
0'
1.
-N13-39V 15062
0
U $. OgraRTSENT Of pa M.TH.EDUCATION tvgcsikea .'worm art. INSTITUTE of
taucATKAI7.0S 00Cumeta7 HAS Attu Agra°OutE0 exAm. As A etervED F *OMbre scow.OA OftGArriZATION0010101AT.PG IT OurTSOF IE*00420100.4STATED 00 HOT reCESSAtew. sameseta OF FrOAL irA DONAL I loST. r TV SC OfEOutArrOA PosT1O.100 poucv
I ....+' . 0
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE ISCROOt
"onterey3alifornia: .. .
f
r
ir
.;
. .
V.
MAJOR CAUSES OF .CIRGANIZICIONAL CONFLICT:. DIAliN04.3 FOR ACTION
C. Eiroold.yn Derr
June* 1975
0
Approved for pul=release; distribution unlipited
2
4
.1.
c
-*
4
. e
. .NAVAL PC64113RAIXIATE_SCHCOL
Iteiterey, CAlifornia.%
Bear Adidral lidvin LinderSuperintaident .
'10
.41
.
02.
..
JaC)c yc,. Hoisting-Provost
Ibis is a conceptual iKaidng.paper. "Reproductiat of all oar partortlxts-repcat # authorized.
This _report was prepared-by:
C.
.
.
O.
C. atocederromAssociate Professor .of-Margyzement
lb
Released, by:
d
d
.
fa
4 ,,
.
r.
Dean_ a Reeearch
et-
n
a . .
1
-.
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSWICATUNI Olr THIS PAGE Mei Data Eafklemg.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEvREAD INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORS!I. REPORT HUMMER 2. GOVT ACCESSION MO.
.3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG. HUMBER
4. TITLE (***344//do) 01 '
L
MAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMM:DIN:MOUS FOli AC1TOM
0.-....
G. TYPE oenubost A PERIOD"COVeRSO
working paperr 11. PERFORMIMOO RtPORT toriszn
=1, ru mon(e) - -
Q. Brooklyn Derr.
.
.I. coorns.crop GRANT NUMISCION
.
O. enrommia ORGANIZATION MAME ANO ADDRESS. ,
Mval Postgraduate School .
Monterey, California 93940.
10. PROGRAM-EI.ENE NT PROJEC T. TASKAREA It MORK UNIT HUNGERS
.
4
H. CONTINOLyNG OFFICE MAMA AND ADDRESS
1
.12. -REPORT OAT'
Arne, 197513. MUMMER OI PAGES
79_.
14. .MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 ADDRESS(/' latforied kyles CemitellIng 0111..)-
* .. o .,
IS. SECURE CUASS. (el We now)
Unclassified'IS*. raltAINICATION7DOINGNAO/NG.
OISTRNOuTION STATEMENT PO Nay Raport)
. Approved far public release; distribution unlimited
17. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMOIllor the &bolted antrat 1111044.'H Itiffosset kers *.peel)
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
1
7f. AOSTRACT lemika. a t Ans* aS 11 owermay oaf kfronalr,ey Week *grind
Six major causes of organizational conflict are delineated; implicationsfor managing these conflicts using collaboration, bargaining and power playsare pointed out; a conflict management -paradigm pointing out which mode of
conflictmanagement works best for which cause is. presented; literature on,organizational conflictramnagapent is reference
IL ,KEY WORDS (0.10*. al 1f 01.1.11 alp 11 seemoy awl Odsoelly y Acir assolney
Conflict management organization deyelornent ingalai stressdifferentiation organizational conflict organizational -theory
role conflicts external pressures Conflict *ablutioncontingenCy theory power struggles interdependence.
.
P
DO I ,427,19 1473 -BOOM* Op I NOV IS ISOSSOUCTS0102.014.41401.1 ITINGLAsnrim
, SiCuRifIr CLAIN ne *non Of MS PASCOE*, Dee tafere)
Wm.
./
.30
O
T.
MAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT:"
DIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION6
(.0
C. Brooklyn DerrGraduate School of Education
UCLA
0
C. BROOKLYN DEAR ".ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
0
4.
NAVAL. POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY. CALIFORNIA 93940
5
IV,
AOMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES ,4011446.267Wi594
O
4."
,0
s
4
MAJOR CAUSES.4F.ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT
DIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION. -
6
' The success or failure of any organization is*
dependent upon the use of its indigenous, collective. .
energies. Wheprocedures are clear, the "esprit de
corps" is high, and the energy resources of the organi-
zation 4é primary and dynamically directed towards
ajievement of the organization's task goals, then
the enterprise is said to be productive. The. number 1..4$
and depth of 'the unmanaged internal-akuleXiernai conflicts
draining its energy resources can generally determines
an organization's place on the scale between success and
falaure.
The primary goal of an Organization's management team, II,
therefore( is to divert resource energy from,conflict
,dissipation .to task-goal implementation. In -Order to
do this, ways and means must be found and applied io,, 0 .
turn conflict energy intoproductitrity, or at least, 4 .
to eliminate the conflict energy draih; linottior words,_
2.
to use conflict-directed organizatiOn energy
. positively.
This is not a simple maneuver. Organizational
.
conflict,occurs at the same organizational level of
individuals and groups, generally responsible for gag-
nosing the problems and effecting the cure. ."Doctor13.
Ore thyself :.." but in order to do so. it is important
that "to thine own self be true .;" in terms of the
organization's good, even if.it means sacrificing your
own ambitions, .needs and-satisfactions.
In an ideOlogically-oriented organization created
.=to handle a war, social unrest or psychic disorder, for
exampIel,the sacrifice -of "self" for the_Fgood of the
organization" carries its own,rewards. In a career-,
oriented organizationl'however, "self" must be preserved
at all costs, or 'thete.will be no car of and no rewards. '
This is the primary and motivating distinctioneetween
career`- oriented otganizational conflict and,confli.qt.
generated. within an ideologically-oriented orgahization.
e-rs-treed-fore-nvIrte gener21 theory about conriict
and 'conflict management and while ,valid concepts and
models at any level of analysis should hold true for
other 'levels as well, there are, nevertheless, someunique
features of career- oriented organizational conflict which,
when highlighted,:maybe.useful,to students of complex
'organizations.-
7.ice
%
7.
i
oD
3.
Xpe emphasis in this article is not on the uniqueness. .
between the iwo.types- of organizations and their conflitts,
bAut rather on the major areas of dispute that occur,/IP
especially within career-oriented.organizations.. 4 . 4
The term "cOnfiicil-(Or "disputel is used in a
variety of ways including tension, opposition, competition-11.
fighting, incompatible interests; violence and problem:
solving. Kenneth W. Thomas and other writers on the subject
have. pointed out that the term "conflict" hks no clear
referrent.1 In this paper, the concept is operationally
defined to mean: energy expended in the enterprise in
reaction to a felt tension. The causes of that tension,:
their intensity-effect and the posiibil&ties of. coping- with ,
conflict are treated below.
-o
FIELDS' OF INTEREST AND-SCHOOLS OF. THOUGHT
The management of organizational conflict,
as a - special subfieid of conflict
.resolutiOn, has come to be much studied and discuiied,
o.,
1
generally, and experimentally implemented in some insti
tutions onlywithin the past five years, However, "several-.
schools of thought on. the subject did begin to evolve: - .
seriously- around 1960; the genesis going back to 1950_
(as cited in Table I) when major journal articles on. the
- ,subject first appeared. The table I articles are listed
by the professions (fields) they serve. It is interesting..
. 8'
I. *
to'note that more has been written to business and
academic audiences than Ito praCtitioners in either- .-
. . .
education or pulgic.admibistrationt A '/n fact, the; .. .Harvard _Business RevIew as.run many more article's..
for practitioners than the other comparable journals,
and the Administrative Science Quarterly Was prihted
far more articles on this subject for academicians.
4
4r
4.,
CP
4
.. 4 ,
4
.4V
et
.4HBR*. .
1951-73
rBUSINESS
e) '
. .
/ .
TABLE I S.
Journal Articles on :Organizatiohal Conflict
.CMR*
EDUCATION
TCR* AN* EAU!'
..1
PUBLICADMINIS-TRATION
.
PAR* ASQ*
ACADEMIC
1965-73 1958 -73 ,1965-73 1952-73 19517'73 1965-73 1950-73 1956-73
JABS* JCR*
1965-73 1957-73
Directly-RelatedArticles*
O s
19
Tangentially-Related "Articles*
I /..
9 0 '3 2 15 .
6
-
16 2
1.
7 1
4 .
7 12
4
e
7:C.
7
SEE APPENDICES. I 4N11
e
5
s 5
I4
X
4
"Directly- related" articles are thOsie that concen-
0
trate -on conflict within organizational boundaries and
are illustrative of knowledge, skills and strategies
(situations) for actually 'managing disputes. "Tangen-
tially- related'- articles, on the other hand, may relate.
.information that has implications for,either what we
know about varieties of organizational conflicts or how<
to resolve them. This latter category does not directly
address the'subject but adds to our understanding.
. Table 11 illustrates the point that the real
Concentration in'this field is a post-1960 endeavor.
Only nine directly-related articles were printed inthe
1950's, while sixty-seven articles have appeared since
0
6.
that time."Also, some thirty-nine articles were .printed
'since 1968 (during the last five years', whereas only .
twenty-seVen were in circulation between 1946-968. The
Appendix lists all of the articles considered .by the.
author to be tangentially and directly.related;
6
L
t
11
4
Vr
`AB
LE
II
iaR
EC
TL
Y-R
EL
AT
ED
AR
T I
CL
ES
APP
EA
LE
DO
N T
yESE
DU
ES
9
s
.7,
"HB
R*
BU
SIN
ESS
AM
.T*
TC
R*
AN
*
.953
(3)
Isis
1960
P.* N
1959
ED
UC
AT
ION
EM
S*E
AO
*
.130341
AD
MIN
IS-
TR
AT
ION
PAR'S
'AC
AD
EM
IC
JAB
S*' J
CR
*
1956
'196
0(2)
1963
(2)
1964
.19
65)-
1967
(2)
1970
1971
(2)
1972
(3)
1973
_-
1966
(2)
1969
(2)
197.
3
Ig68
1969
1970
'
1972
(2)
1973
(3)
f
1962
1968
1970
.
1972
1967
1972
'
O
1959
1960
1961
1962
,
1965
1966
1969
(4)
X97
019
71..
1972
(2)
r19
73
1965
1957
(2)
1963
1966
1967
619
6819
6919
70(2
)19
72(2
) 19
70(2
)19
73°
, .The literature moistly describes opinions abort the
genesis of biganixational conflict. Since 1065, however,- .
iiereetas been an .emphasis on effective action- to - .manage
it. The Most pfeValent, aRproach is the collaborative one.
asclibed to by organiiation development ,(OD) pgopodenti:
They fioiht out that:. conflict is .neither good nor-bad bUt a
normal cons. nonce of orgenitational life; 'that it occurs .io not
iixortasit es-bow it is managed. The method 'that leads to
ffeckivenesp. .1s. Annmbick vier. .tbe_aiipute-as-crentiwer_tension -
ineify:vbiob, broiight to the -surface and pobien Solved-, can
;l ::to innovation, better intettersonal telationships and increased
ptcidundifity..2- -
. .
. A More recent -approach to organizational design oand
fo;
match. the. internal 'tasks and- structure to the demands of
the external environment . ,This...schOO1 of thodiht contends. ..
. th4t.: theft- is no -"beset way to design "-,he enterpriae, since .
. -
. .' -'...., .
ippropriate,structuge, for; enanple, is contingentUpon the: task,.
. .-
the environment and the needs of individuals and groups working is,. . ,
the erten. The theor-yaand _empirical research. aupportingd a .
this. point,- of View has resulted body pf literature
tiown as '"Contingency Theory.:P3' Qne rule of thumb is.
that: the :pieseriptionfoi .iiprowenent_oust be appropriate and,
therefore, cilia only be nsde-after a careful diasktsis.
A
0
f
In a Contingency Approach, effective conflict manage-
' -,went depends on an in-depth assessment of the major 'causes
of the dispute.
a
.
groups against one:-another to achieve vtheir own selfish
_
Almost any effective action will depend on a valid
. and useful diagnosis of the problem(s). Whether the
research suppOits a more normative (collaborative) OD0
view about effective conflict management or a Contingency
Theory approach is a much debated question. Thefollowing
describes the author's synthesis of What the litetature. -
says are the major reasons for conflict==Ehose-Vh2ch-hamr-
9.
C
implications for intervention and management-Mich will later be
heated with some of his and others' experiences in the
application of different management procedures.
--------
MAJOR CAUSES- OF -CONFLICT
According to the literature, thete are innum erable
origins of otganizational,dispute'and'each.produces'its
own variety of effects. In general, there are six major, -
sources: (1) the interpersonal disagreements thatarise
when one persoh is experiencing individlial stress;
(2) theiproblems resuliihg from role_conflict, a condition
that occurs when there is a clash over ohe"s role, in the
organization;. (3) the power struggles that pit persons and
objectives; (4) the misunderstandings and disagreements
0
. 14
10.
from differentiation, i.e., the clashes that arise because
people approach common problem's from very different
orientations; (51 the interdependence requirements for
collaboration which, if not extensive and balanced .
between the parties, cause communication and idteractl'on
breakdoWns which, in,turn, if critical, lead to more
intensive conflicts; and ,A6) the external pressures..
4--from forces outside the enterprise that breed internat-A
pressures as the _system seeks-ip adapt but not to.disrupt.4
its internal order.
INDXVIDUAL STRESb.
r
× the feelings, anxieties and tensions'ey
perienced' by a-person are so strong as-to inflUence his, .
4 .
work relationships with others.- The origin of-these
internal conflicts may or may not bp directly attributed
to the vxganitation.. People bring their whole selves. to-,
6 the workplace and they may he experiencing stress as a
result.of their membership in other organiiations
voluntary groups, the family) or they may be working'. 4
through psychological...issues. (e.4.4 depression, par-
scnality change, identity :crisis). There are, lume4Ver,
several causes of individual stress that Ake directly
related to the organization.- 1.4
.; 15
-
4.
Unfulfilled. Expectations
There is often an expectation :gap betifeen what
the employee "Understands. the job or task to be and what
it actually is. In some organizations, recruiters tend
to overemphasize favorable aspects- ofa jOb. do that
false expectations are generated. This is especially
true when the job is professional in nature- (e.g.,
requiring
training,
individual expertise that comes from special
the product. of whidh can only be judged by
others with similar -knoiiledgerbe4414e-the 'conditions-.
and emphasis of the position vary according to the
organizations' -needs and therefore
lens in'liis field of expertise
11.
4
cannot be-defined.
that were high priority
at the time "of recruitment might be downgrded,' forcing
the professional to accept a lesser degree of importance
in tie organization, in direct ratio to the problem-solving.
emphasis reqUired by. the- Organization. 1
A
Ifi other instanc4, "fhe recruit himself is 'so, intent
,on achieving his own objectives -that he interpretk phe
recruiters messages- to 'suit himself. -Be ig later -dieap*-4.
pointed to discover that it is not possible to -kedetine._
the "grey" areas between his objecti*es and; thoke of' the
.organixittion tb"--tris .satisfaction within the 'already
established -social 'system.
The rate of organizational change in our society
1.6
.p
C.*
I%
often makes it impossible to keep original promises and
contracts. The needs and objectivesof the organization
may change dramatically with new technology, new comr
petition and new client wientations. JObs and tasks
inside the system must vary accordingly to adapt to. ;
.deMands _coming from the-external environment.
Research by SOhe in4,
and- Kottek5 stressesA A
worker's satisfaction and productivity in hia
that
first year
12.
.is./argely determined by the degree to which his expectations
and those of the organization match._ kottees work under-
scores the IMPortinCe' IfOr employee activation) of %matching
expectations even over the possibility of an uqexpected
bbonus Argyris6; and Levinson7 have also stressed
the importance of stated and unstated expectationsas a
powerful determinant of organizational behavior..
)
/
Values
It is increasingly commonplace for -an employee's
'personal values to bein conflict with the norml, .&ccediies
and goals of the enterprise. Employees believe less and
less that they should subdrdiate their interest to those
Of the organization.."
The emergence of the notion that a person has a,-7 410.
greater, moral duty to exercise his judgment against the
organization for the good of society is-growing. For
example, Ralph Nader encourages goveriment employees to
2
1
SO,
13.o
serve as social watchdogs and report to public scrutiny.
groupi, any .ihformaiiollythat conflicts with their inter-
pretation of the public good. The cases of DanielElls-
Berg releasing the Pentagon.Papers for publication and
Jack Anderson reporting the National Security Council 5-
discussion of. the India-Pakistaik War "tilt" are illus-.
trations of this new 'version of morality.
Values gieatly influence individual behavior. They
-determine what the individual regards as good, right'and
. important.' They govern' his attitudes towards cautesaod
issues. They control the way he internalizes, assimilates,
and transmits information and concepts. They even serve
as guides for his behavior. When a "person exiwiendes
a conflict between his values, and those of organization,'
he undergoes person4l stress that may well affect-his
performance ancicause difficulties fo-.7';the enterpriie.8. .
Authority Relationships
An individual's psychological tolerance for and
response to authOrity figures -are,critical.iMpact factors.
on.his relationthip-to the organization. Various types ,
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
of Subordinates may have different relponiej to the
same toss:. one May work well with one boss_and clash. .
with anotherLa colleague might favor the second boss
and fight with the first. The'leadership style of the
boss and the disposition of the subordinate towards
authority peksons in geneial and towards a leadership0
1.8
I
: 14.
style in particular, will determine the extent to which
there exists personal stress in the subordinate that
could lead to organization conflict.9
Some persons have deep, psychological needs to
dominate or control. Such a type can be impulsive-ande
actively seek to overthrow the authority person.' :This'
is the so-called "trouble-maker." His insatiable need
for power causes him:to create conflict situations to
undermine the-authority- person who dominates him.
When Worganizes others against the boss, the
friction he creates within the organization react,. _
detrimentally upon ale system and ultimately against
him. .
Thtre is stilt another type of individual who, also
wants to dominate but he uses amore'passive Modus
operandi. Suffering from a sense
negative feelings towards his boss, his aggression is
usually more. hidden and his tactics are more indirect.
maniptilative."-He is capable of.spreaaing malicious.
golf:sip and of sabotaging the work to make the authority
person look bpd.
-Theethere is the individual whomeeds-to be in control
of his own destiny so that,any directives by an authority
figure are negatively viewed.,, His greatest goal is tither
to have a well-defined job where he,can do the minimum
,:and,have the rest of the time to himself, or .to be in the.
capacity of. a 'professiona'l with Maximum flexibility and
9
. .
autonomy. He- rebels against authority by, a$oding it, J
.
trying to become as free as possible fram itsi0 A. 0
He even avoids interaction and participation fort,feak J. ..4. s _ d
that he will then be forced to follow the7.grOup'..
% .- . -,, decision instead of acting independently. Such an employee .
,.-%
.
. .
.
seeks to build barricades.
around himbeIf in order to ...
enjoy maximum autonomy...
O
Relative Deprivationi
p
-People-_-frequently-evaluate.theirmell4ming in .
relative rather than absolute tetras. They compare them-..-
igolves with others and their apparent:.stlinding' in the,
)/(Comparidon.determines,theirhappihess. The feiiiing of
'being deprived in relation to othirs rather than actually
10.being deprived is a state kn9wrlas_nrelatiVe iLdepriation-n -
...
However, relative deprivatiotrtheoryjoresumed that
there will be close istociatibn- with a reference giOu0 so
that the degree of similarity between the individual and
the other people. (of.referen6e).:caigtabtished. The
individual wilt then have to choose which seta he prefers.a
Such conditions exist in a complex organization. _people
?--
.4;,4
Ore
work qlosely within th eir own -work, group and they compare(I(
I-
themiefves as to saliky, work conditions, status, authority,
"opportunities,. etc., to others 'in the group,. ;Groups_within
the system compare themselves' to other groupeCi,
_ .
t
e
.21.
. ...*%-
"16.-
'Persons and /or-groups in oiganczed. setting :do --, .0
experience' relative deprivation. Ain a .result; -.the
individual may be -openly. hostile tO- another mefiber of.- e
the- group,.'-Or the group -hostile to ahothet group. They
may, feel that the orginization. is taking' .advantage of _
thel and that they Should act against it (e'egy-,-..sabotage)---, _.
-.or should do less Work. They may simply feel '=hurt ;because .
: ..they are not -valued- .ait 4-,. as a. consequence,. may withdraw,
. .
. performing, only the Minimum required- of iheiti._
-i
1.!,:.,
.e
..
SelfrEsteem__
_._
.4.1.
.
;.
..,
. .
Chris' Argyris -maintains that three aspects. ofindividual..personalitk relate to one's -competence- and
effectiVenestifil. First, the person must accept :hlinse-If---,
.so. that te- values himself; he is then opentre75Cliiii.--,
feedback regarding. his attitudes, -hi:a-work and "sicci0"%
products,- -" za,1 to be minimally defensive. -This is because,
he values his thcs le self enough to consider criticism.
. . .
willingly and accepts suggestions that 'can- improve a part
of himself that is '14.cng-iwithout, in, turn,. deyaluing- , , -. ,,,
-,MO whole-self) ...Second? the-:person-Siiskt-get---.9orifitmation
,,that his view of reality -on any 'g yen. Iiibleat of ptolgera
- Itcompares favorably with the- view :of hers; this gives.him more self-confidence in his own pep. ions. Finally,
,Orthe portion. needs =the .free'dom to 'be able to`-̀ess hi* in
capabilities and concerns for improving the sis 00 that. .
-21-
e
- 0.
.4
i
____,....::
..
: p
17'.
he feels essential to its effectiveness.- .The feelings of etsentiality,,, confirsiatiOn and-
selffitacceptance are precondition's' to effective inorganizations: 'These 'ate' all part of a person's totalseli-esteem.
_ Onthe other ,hand,. . individuals. with . law self- esteem
in one or niore-of the ".self" areat, can generite manyorianizational.00nflticts. ,SuchpersOnii tend, to become
overly defensive in order to be -able to survive with :the
low opinions they head of. thesiselves. result,: they'..
depersonalize any feedback and attribute it _to uncontrollable, .' , _
events or to other people. Ttley.rationaVize aWay liegative :,.
-information rather khan- acting to. 'improve' the situation:.
They regard. such data,as- a cuMuleitive attack on- themselves
rather than accept as useful that 'feedback which seenis'to
be .accurate.
Conflicts occur when the person of 4.,-6w self.esteem!s
defOnsive behavior blocks pLOnest and meaningful interaction.
with fellow workers; also when they 1)erceive that he -is
fragile, they tend to ignore or, avoid' hilt; when such aperson, under stress, withdraws and :denies to .the-. others.
.r
access to orM zot1731cis (inciucting hwn-:1he holds back as well the benefit of his best-perfoilitnCe .
. ,-..-...
which, under normal -conditrequire, would- reqUi taking- riskim .. ..
.
0.1%
01.
-;"
44,
18.
ROLE'- CONFLICT
, .. .
. .
._ Some social psychologists argue that an organization
is substantially a number of organized acts among people,.,'.
People act on MOterials4 on machinet, and on one-another:- \
_Thuix the organization is comprised of persons interacting_
!,in certain.rOles; and it' is possible to understand' an:
. .r
indiVidual's behavior iii-the organization by finding out
"what his roles are in.respect.to.others.
olebehavior in a complex organization refers to
"the recurring actions of an.individUall.aepropriatay.
interrelated with the repetitive activities of others so. . P
o as _to yield predictive outcOme.'il2. memberi. ,t .
of the-.,_
4
organization perform, their interactions with others-who..
..
are Often. called the. "role-det." The role-set is composed'-
P---of those persons who are interdependent,with ajartiOular.
person In ,the organization,,
And' theactiviiiewalst define. ,
, his role are maintained*throUgh the expectations of members....._ .,. . .
. p-g.:, '
,
of the role -set, Sometimes, however, the person, does mit.. - . .
d ,-11....choose:to conform to.these "eitpeotations'and.conflict rallies. 47
2
,': e-p12.The strong est illdividual Stress Aspects-in role
VI.
conflict are the expectations' gags that ,cause, personal,.'
tension.' Theieare often due to the clash between the.
4_
perpon.and his yae-set rather than-r for example, the.. .
pqrsom and the whole organization. The other causes of,4 ...f .
individual stress presented above are all intensitied As
pan indiVidual interacts With other members of his rd1fe-set.
4
-
e
r
It
...
However, there is an4Mpottant distinction between
role conflict and indiyidual stress per se. ,In the
former, the emphasis is placed on Understanding the=
.dIsputed'thai occur -when-there is_ interaction between
0.
0 4
the person and his role set. In the latter" category,_ .
there is an effott to try to determine what happened
within the person that led him first to experienCe.dOnftt.
flictO
and later to act it out on the tole s0.. Role
Conflict' is interpersonal and intragroup in nature;
individual stress is intrapersonal but eventually leadingP
t6the_interpersonal /exiel-bf analysis. As I(atz and. A
ehn-state about the nature.of role theory:4.. .. .
. ,. .
It is the' reeeived role which is the immediatesource of influence and motivation of his
(insofar as it is, influenced by Membersof his role set). Finally, the. Local personacts; showing some coMbinitiOn 4tomplianceand non -cops liance with the expectations of hisrole-set. ti
-iThere are a- number of reasons. Ay ndividuale may
not conform to. the expectationp. of members'of their role
set. Ones contradictory messagesreceived.from others,
.such as trying to live up to the expectations of the
_principal of a school which may violate.iMpdrtant norm§P
.of a.teaching*team. Two: different persons within a
role -set may have diverse expectations and the individfial$,"*.. .<
may have to' choose one set of expectations.-instead.of
another.- Example: sometimes a new teacher may
IP
.*
7
N".
O
t
.
:i...; ...Langaillatisneeded.lies in the choice' he makesaboUt how,
:. J % .- - . !
- ..
.
. choose between what his/her professor in college-taughtV
to strive towardsand:the different phildsophies and'
methods of the faculty with which she/he is now working.
Three: interroIe conflicts manifested dile to the
multiple roles in the organization. hick most persons
0 .
must assume. An individual may Wet teacher, the head.
of a curriculum committee,, the member bf a planding
committee, and at the same time a teachers' association. .
xepresentative,'A choice will have icibe -made by this
person-betWeen'the expectationtof
takers with whoM.he interacts, for
the different -roles
an expectation of one
might ,weld be in conflict with the expectations -of another,
Four:, role overload, a result of expectations Of"
meMbers of the various role sets which are too demanding'..
It may be impossible to satisfy them all.
Five: peroonal reluctance.on the part of-the
individual.who'simpay. does not want to .comply with the
expectations of.members of his role -set. The expectations
i,
may be. ,perceived: by the individual as against 'his personal.
va
Iesj
not personally interesting to him, in violation'
Nt
.
-torofessional orientation to the work, dr different.
.
-
from hii own perceptions of What,is needed. This part of
%role conflict theory is '-similar to the individual stress
category. Once again; however, the .emphasii in this,.
last differentiation between an individual's perceptions.
0
-4
R
4
4
p
21.
to oppose the others in the group, and not on his personal
tensions which may lead sometimes unintentionally, to
interpersonal disputes.
POteR STRUGGLES.
f.'rt
Power struggles seem to be-anatutal part of
organizational life'. Robett Ardrey claims that man has
.4
a real need for territory or apiece of the action he can
call, his own." 'David Modellararhas distin4Uihed
between socialized Power, that is, the4desireto use
influence, to serve and be more socivIly, responsible, And-
personalized power, defined as the need to control and.
use power to a dvance bne'sseif.- _The ocialized power:%f 4 '
teed is normal 'Among lig (lets and might be beneficial to
,t''21the'orgvization. course" personalized poOter need
can also,-be d5structive. Michael C rOzier_states that
, power' plays of one kind or another were"at them heart of
all the conaicte hehas studied." And the' conclusive.
thesis of Anthony Jay's "Management and Machiavelli" is
thatbureaucratio politics (power playing) are normal and
natural and should therefore be dealt with dispassionately
as a reality of organizational life. 17J.
40
.Power struggles occur-when'some personsora grant:J(8)
try to gain advaqtage over:others. One commpn- reason for
a power struggle is competition for:scarce resources 4e.g.,
0
26.N
...L.
e
e
.t-
4
A
status, information,, work load,, -budget) .the.objective-
is to set up:a destiudtiire win-lose situatiow-whereby.6 : 1
onemg p, -parties will be destroyed, or at. least. el
dominate `by the victor.*tr.''
1...
- A second cause of power struggles'in:Complex.organit. .
z , .
zationsarises when parties seek to gain inflUence thrOugh
the,informal organization. /fhe person dr,group(s) who
have the recognition -based power are the key to this gambit.
(or` they are) perceived by organizational,'
14mbeis as having access to the boss, or haVerled,Jar
whatever means deference from, others, received key assign-. a 8 .
minis, he or they) are able because oeposiOmn to dp:1iir,er
services and-favors, etc., and4a power - wielding positioe'
ha0.7beenestablished.'
A third cause of.poier struggle conflict springs
-frost thf Incompatible drives for autonomy and influence,
Ily'definitton, to be -influential is to be Involved with
pthers and to be autonomous is to be neither involved nor
.= influenced. To be influential- therefore, fulfillecertain
power needs for control l-olier others, while 'to beAUtonomoUs-. . 0
allows one to be his own man (Okercis control oveiself) -.
Tigu,re I represents the spoweiftriangle" andhelps ma. .
.. 6
.
better to understand some of these dynamicsor the.
. .
organizationapower struggle leading to Conflict:
4
0.
0
0
0
I.:
. .
THE POWER TRIANGLE
AUTHORITY.
Influence and autonomy are mutually incompatible
oblectives_that clash at the .vertex and. are linked
together by the common base of formal authority. Persons
.trying to be.autonomous7attempt to resist the rules,
policies ana pressures of those in authority, and those
--who-seek-influencs_either try to enlist the support of
authority figures- (to use them) or vie for the positions
theimelves so-that they can combine informal influence0
23.
with formal authdrity. Conflict arises when, for example.,
Subordinates resist the orders ofthOse in authority or
when the organization cannot.gain full- compliance by
subordinates for its dedisions.
Conflicts also arise within'-apersOn orpgroUpthat
attempts to be. both- influential and autonomous. A "best,
of both worlds" approach seldom sucteeds an4 in this-
case, it is difficult to straddle the line-between getting-.
involved and'staying,aldof-
A valid'reasonfor conflict develops:when an emergent
leader with influence' (e.g.x,senior_professoi) disagrees
with the authOkitrperson department cbairman). In
; o
213_
0 -
to.
24:
some organizations, the emergent leader can gain more
infldence by remaining a marginal or informal leader,
i.e., keeping a law profile and manipulating through others.
.Gonfltet also occurs when an individual succeeds.,
at gaining freedom from the restrictions and thereby thea
influence of his role set. Such a person is often disputed..17,
.
because he cannot be counted on-to do his-share" of: the
work) support the'norms considered by the role set to be0
important or to contribute to-a resolution of the problems
.and issues being deliberated by them for which they 'are
responsible.
. The fourth of the,power struggles causes is manifested,
when persons of equal authority in a-work group. (peers) vie
for leadership positions and influence. Most group decision;
are usually made by compromises or consensus. Either
process results in unleashing powerful points of view that
try to sway the group; these can lead to unmanaged negative
feelings and disagreements. In fact, wide open channels of
communication can encourage the expression of' tensionsall
of which is to the good, but only if 'those feelings are
managed.
Group-based emergent leadership it often captured by
articulate spokesmen because:the scene (a group. with members.4,0
taking) is one in which expressive persons'ean dominate-.
This sometimes causes conflicts for the inarticulate.the
'tixddiand for those who haye a different reactive style
29
.(e4g.,American Indians, through tribal traditions
- 25.
inculcated from birth;generally listen and remain silent
-until there is a movement towards consensus, or they
really have a deeP.felt.positioq:to takel:.
Intragroup conflicts also emerge-when newcomers find
. it difficu/t to gain true access to the rest of the group
or when trying to establish their influence-identity.
through certain incumbents, they offend or irritate others,
The indigenods seeds of power struggles take root
When group-based decision.making does not work. The con-
fidential information that was freely exchanged because
there was initial -trust is now used by, warring factions
in the 'form-of delitOrious-gossip or making. strategy
decisions against the opposition.
A fifth power struggle confrontation occurs when some
of the interrelated departments and,orginizations are not
bound by either a-COMMon-authority or the need to collaborate
(interdependence). These independent units-, howeverltend
to get involved in important power struggles to strengthen
their already strong positiond. They fight unilaterally
-, for jurisdiction over various functions (territories)1.
they vie with competitors,for sdarde.regources within the,
common marketplace, demonstrating tOClients that they can
out-perform their competitors (e.g. by profit Otatements),,
failing really to communicate in the **ailing" phase the
joint Problems they have in common with the others; they
"30_ ,
distort -or Withhold piOiliation from Clients and competitors
alike. Thus, as the opposing units- unite." defensively,
strong intragroup -feelings of -solidarity against- the*
AutonoMOugi- unit are built/ and as. a resulti..ndmeroua inter7
-perioital hostilities and attitudes. of distruttThese are difficult, if not impossible,- to overctite. at alater time when the autonomousunit needs to work together
with One or -more of the other units.
.DIFFERENTIATION-
The relationship between organization and environment
has been the focuS of much recent research and theory
building. Both empirical and theoretical studies. haie
shown that, given certain task -environmental requirements.,
some patterns of structure and behavior are sore appropriate. -
than'others; that organizations Conforming_ More closely_1with these patterns are. more effective.,, 8 This concept,
subject of afgrowing body of literature, is called"Contingency -Theory:" It is a "contingent" theory beCause
the theme,common to these studies, is that,effectiVe patter:tit
of organizational structOre and behaVior are contingent
on environmental and task demands. 19. An organizational
pattern; initially well- suited to. an .existing.-enviroment,ceases to be-appropriate as major environmental changes;
occur.. They require coMpensating -changes' in the .task
patterns of the organization in 'order for the organization tofunction dynamical-ly .Within the new, . environmental atmosphere..
314
,..
.
The basic premise of 'Contingency Theory is that'an imitable
environment requires the 'organization ,to exhibit alertness;
flexibility and dynamic. responsiveness. .to 'Whatever changes:
..
may occur. ,
Several empirical and iheoreticil Studkelit Of -organ i-
zatiotial response to environmental Change ',support this
conclusion.29 For example/ Burns and--Stalker have shown "'
that in order to ;survive, organizations thrust into dynamic0i
and uncertain environments require 'different patterns- of
O
1)
structure and conflict resolution than do organizations.., 3 . .........
comfortably entconsed in, stable and unchanging environ-..-::---
ments.21 Work by Emerf and Tist, Dill, $tarbucjc, and
Terreberry also support these,findings:iind suggest -that
as environments evolve in terms of diversity., turbulence,Ci
-,.
-rates of change, or uncertainty, Organizational patterns
of behaVior must evolve with the*.22
One of the most recent and elaborate ContingenCy Theories.- , 9
has been advanced by'Lawrence and*Lorsch. Their approach
his already received -much- attention in business circles.231
,
Building -on several other studies concerning: organizationil-,
environmental "fit," Lawrence and- Lorsch. vieWed organizations
as- -open Systems capable of Internal differentiation.- Within-
. this premise, they developed a contingency model for studying'
the relationship between environment and internally. differen-
tiated complex organizations." Obsetving that organizational
environments- often, offer :a wide divergity of..
issues, they
.
-i
,c
postulated that organizations segment themselves into
subunits, each subunit concentrating orvvne part of the
organization's task and environment. The authors-'' hypo-.
thesized that if the individual "subenvironments' and.
the. corresponding tasks Of these subunits were:different;
. .
from each other, then - the -internal organizatiOh.of each
of the-various subunits would, also have to differ..
They theorized that segmentation into subunits
has two. consequences: (1) the efforts of thevariout
segmented:parts are integrated; making the entire organi-
zation viable; and (2) differentiation among members of
the various ports is created-. "Differentiation" was
,operationally"definea as the differences among rneibers. of
Major subunits in cognitive and attitudinal Orientations,
i.e.; differences in attitudes and behavior, not simply
division of labor or specialization of knowledge. Diffeten-.
tiation was measured in. four areas:, goal orientation,
formality of structure; time orientation; ancFinterpersonal
orientation.
Using these constructs, Lawrence and Logsch pOstulated;
and. later showed empiriciflY4 "that the greatetthe differen-
tiation among parts; themore difficult it was to.bring
about.integration of effort.m25 Integritiokwes defined as
the perceived state of collaboration! betvven-lajor,paire.idsublinite.
In &comparative study of. organizations in three
different U.S. industries; Lawrence and Lorsch found that
each indlistry required different patterns of differentiation
30'
r/
if organizations were to be effectiVe. In the more diverse
and uncertain industry-environments, subunits had to be
29i
I
inbre- differentiated. from each other if the total organi-
zation was to cope with the-diversity.of its tasks and
subenvironments. Environmental. diVersity was operationally
defined as . the degree to which- the_ sthenvironnents corresponding
to various subunits differed in their relative certainty of infuriation,
time- span- of feedback, and the nape issues they presented= to the-
organization;26
Lawrence and- Lorsch discovered that the more effective
firms (in terms of economic .criteria) in industries .
characterized by highdivertity were more differentiated
than the less effective firms.27 They alto-found that
these firms had simultaneously achieved higher'states of
integration bgtween subunits. In the more diverse environ-
ments, high differentiation was required betwien. subunits'
but considerable integration was heeded to bring together
.these differentiated but interdependent parts. j
A study of the best performing organizations operating
in the differentiation mode showed that they were 'mores
effective in resolving interdepartmental conflict and in
joint decision making than the lessei perfording firms.
It was found-that the mechanics for integration-in'the
latter were more, highly deVeloped than in the former. These
conclusions suggest that the higher the degree of differen-
tiation among subunits-, the.greater the need for eiabOrate
4
I
6
30.
.integrating (conflict management) devices;.
James Thompson indirectly reinforces this contention
when he states ,that division of labor (segmentation) is
one of the major causes of organizaticinAl,cOnflict And that- #
this 'is due,to the diverse orientations of the heterogeneous
organizational poRtilAtion (differentlation).28
Todd Laporte, in studying a.government research and
development orginization, discovered a minimum of diffekenz-
tiation and therefore a minimum of conflict because the -
workers were for the most part self-dependent scientists
who required little interaction with other scientists to
accomplish their part of the organizatiori't task..29 However,
in"Harrison White's studies of the disagreements between
an R & D and a production department in an industrial
enterprise, the. kinds of conflicts he describes aresimilar
to the ones discovered by Lawrence .andLorsch in the highly
.differentiated firms, and by-and-large substintiate their
conclusions."
Conflicts occur because people and grows approach
'problems with totally different orientations.. This is
especially. true at the intergroup level of analysis where
whole departments become cohesive and competitive and take. _
on.speciil indulgent characteristics to serve and protect
their domain, causing. conflict thereby with other groups.
outside their orbit whoseorientation and objectives are
different. this is just as true at the interperson'al level
when.t4o ifferent individuals try to 'collaborate je.4.4
-3 5
1
Ni
IL
31.
academic consultant and line administrator, the directors
of two different departments, and old-timer and a young
MBA in the same task foice .
INTERDEPENDENCE
The more two persons or groups are required by the
nature of the task to work together (be interdependent),
the greatei the potential for conflict. If persOns lust
work closely and dependently with one another to get the
job done, they will be more sensitive to their disagreements.
Forced to Collaborate, the magnitude of the consequalCes
of disagreements are intensified on aonetto-one basis
'because of the nature of the close, enduring relationship.
` As a result, the potential for friendship or antagonism is
in direct ratio
disagreements.
more intense or
interdependence
A residual
to the intensity.and frequency .of their
Thus, whenever conflict arises., it is made -'
less Intense bythe relative climAte dif.the
between the individuate.
effect of high interdepends ce seems .to be
the corresponding drive for autonomy. 31 If t q imposition.
of joint activity is 'too demanding, the people.i0yolved
.
will consider it an invasion of their right to pursu some
of their own interests. Interdependence, therefore, b eeds
conflict when people with needs for autonomy for their
interests tend to resist it (depending on how heavy are
the requirements for collaboration). -
33
t, 32_4
0 Mien collaboration is superimposed by the organization
Ondepartments or other groups, Soma comion,bOnflicts often ,
emerge. Usually they-ate the kinds of probleislwe disCussed
in the previous :section on differentiation. Moreover, if
the two groups ,have had a-histori of poor relationa in the
past, the new venture is adversely affected froi,the beginning:,
This negative entry into collaboration can qdicklyaoctmUlate
into a struggle over who will. possess what information
spend what budget, initiate action oi control decisiohs..
On the other fund, the laCk ofinterdependence can
also be a cause of organizational conflict., Arsons who
do not have to collaborate onthemain body of their work
and therefore do not- frequently communicate Or interact with
others, tend to guard their-Insular domain by being secretive
and distiustfUl. They generally .do not understand nor seek
knoWledge of the problems of other persons or groups.
Opekating: without validated information,_ .they -will react
to; apparent or imagined encroachments on their autonomy.,
creating real conflicts where often, none need to exist-.-;
XTERNAL PRESSURE
Complex organizationslwhethei they be bUsinest.or
schoolso,must_accomplish.three major functions. simultaneously_
in order to survive: they must adapt to demands comingg
frothe external environment, they must change-internally
to facilitate suchAadaption, land they-must need organizational
Mg.
a
.1
N-
a
-NT!
4.
-objectives.
32.
.
Thus, an enterpribe does not exist insa
vacuum; rather, it is a part of its own external enviro n-
I
ment and Must meet those external demandS in'order to
33:.
continue existence. These factors'are part of the Lawrence
and Lorsch theory described abo4e in the section on
differentiation.
The boundaries of An organization at the interface
with its environment are not self-contained but are
permeable. There is a continual process of *potting,.
Converting and exporting materials toiand from the environ-
ment. Walter Buckley underscores thigs,conceptrSS
4
That a system is open, means, not simply,tjat it engagesin interchanges,with the environment, butthat thisinterchange is in essential factor underlying the system'sviability, its reprodusSive ability- or continuity., andits ability to change.
The external environment canbe a formidableforce
impinging on the organization. ,It can cause organizational. .
conflict as the internal system tries to- .adapt to of defend
, against presdures frdb without. For exfmple, every bUsiness
recognizes the impact of its clients and competitors on
its performance; every school system feels vulndrable to-
the detands of parent and community groups, to chin4es.i;
teaching and administration.
Some OD theorists believe that exceptional conflict
possibilities are put on the system when the environment
38
#
-34.
is generally uncertain or unstable (i:g., in innovative,.-
, . .
Industries: such acelectronAds. or,plastich or, :in the
public sector, when government funding is uncertain }.. ,
-. Persons in such tentative-systemii-are-learful-and-are--------- --.--------7-.
_. . _
.
. under constant pressure to provide-for their own siiiirival.
a
.
Thii leads to many conflicts, even when a-disaster'threat-.or;
is not imminent. However, -when crisis reigns' and chaos-.,
is rampant, the authority persons ,at ihe top of thWorgani-
zation tighten their controls so as to assure system surviVal
and thereby their As .a result, many become involved
in vicious power ,st uggleconflicts. Each tries to dominate
and secure his posi ion w;th added power and at the same time,
take advantage of tjhe crisis in order to possess greater
influence and moreterritory
The clients o consumers,
bring direct force to bear on
However, some env
wOri it has POstd.
of organizations-gometimes
the servingorganisation.
ronmental groups are part of the system's
own mechanism for 'gaining external Cooperation and: feedback,
For example, stockholders vote end express their opinions
a& the annual meeting. The PTA serves as a channel for
parents tO'discuss theirewsmith. re -school system/ Many
feelp.however, that the effectiveness of an envirOnmental
'group's input on the system is minimal because the orgapi-.
nation controls whether or not to-act.on'their suggestions..
pr, if it does act, it may-do-so in such ..a way that - the.
interest of persons in the :system are first protected- and /. or°
39
O
15,
*.35.
served, distorting and possibly destroying the intent of,
the suggestion and the effectiveness of implementation.r
Alto, organizations can' and do coergethe involvement
of these kinds of groups in decisions to back their own
self- serving versions of a group-sponsored program of action
by deceptive promises to utilize the progrim_in" a way
that will satisfy-the group4 Objectives. When the
deception surfade4,,it is too late and generally too
embarrassing for the deceived group toadmit its gulla-i. if,"'
bility besabotaging A programsiesupported.
However, recent` decades in Mericin history have
demonstrated the powerful impatqf protest groups on
'(141korganizations. 'Students have illepecitated:universities;
't,g' .
schools have beefi boycotted and, sometimes, shut down by
rioting students and unhappy citizen groups; governmental
'sagencies, pa riicuIarly those whose fundilons related to
the Vietnam Way and presently those wbose focus is on
poverty,race relationi, etc., have seen the victims of
many irate citizens' assaults.
Protettors have a whole menu of destructive techniques
they use effectively to engineer disrders-, slowdowns,'
sometimes ruin to the target cirgAnizations: whOle schools
are immobilized and thrown into- chaos by the simple, act of
setting off fire alarms or by calling in false bomb reports;
valuably productive time_ of a orlipization's imiiort4ht
personnel is-di4Vipated respondirg to false aqcusations, 'td.- .
- .
4 ,zt .h
:04
I4
401
1...44.4
o
.
t
04
.
4
4.
- o.
36.-
.'crank" letters and phone calls, to forged .cemunidations
0c
- .ft. ontaining information that is 'false, malicious and
.
embarrassing; stores service is disrupted when. ahcorate of phoney-costumers take. up tit& clerks'. tilde. ej.th a
,series4Of nuisance questions and filse accusations- for ;. c ! "
the simple purpose of harassment and to make 'the regular
customers impatient with the 'resulting lack of. serVice-.
. .Ofteri,the technique is a subtle cfamPaignc.of half truths 4
...designed to get the media on the side .of the' protestorsi. .1 . .. ..and take a position against -the organization. This. ie
./ .. . .
not tO say that 'all protest "graTt Pe that resort to suchI
extreme techniques ire .not advocates of worthy causes..
Generally, ,all. other methods of making their cause felt. .
-and acted upon have failed andsofte sort of extreme
-. technique is ,a la st resort. -On'the other hand;. there
0
--- -groupsare protest grolips whose purpoie is not to better conditions-
.
or improve the .byttem-within socially acceptable COordinater.- .°
a,
°
Their oblective,is to destroy the organization and thesystem itself because the systewill not accept them on. * t
equal.termis-and! to this end, no action no tadtid. ii.. .a ..."
iOoextre* . . .1.. , .
. ..
A The author has- extensively researChed,the evolution4,
of protest, groups and their target. organizat=ions, over, ,
a period of years, tracing the progression of thp strategiesemployed to influence the organizationom.legitiMata
7and
.
traditional presentationS/ through channels provided for by-O
.t
4;: liDO
.4-
4".
O
...-system - through the extreme means of forde,and-violence
.. . : 1.
.. 0 %."
. .,;7'. . .
';',Wfitch.were ultidafittY resorted :when-the syStei-refuted.. ...
--... .... ..,
... ... 'their demands. ihdi4oUght off their .strategic-06ves: "'The_46 - study was concitned with the 'black comiunities New York
. :
.
and' Boston vying for their communities' control of the. -
pubEicischools.-
In, he first study, the author identified twelye
aajOt groups that influenoed the Boston Soho& .b4pfirtment.
'between 1962-1970. The major ones were in order_Of"their,.
importance: Oarent andciti;en groupscin the black.
community,,local universities, the mass media federal and
state governmental agencies, the teachers union, other.parental groups, dissenting students, ieform groups fi-oM
suburbia, professional organizations,:the business ComMunity,
City Hall, and Lciedited agencies.33
In a second, as yet unpublished teddy of five groups
in the black community in New York and Bostonsthat were
vying for community control of the schdols, the author
identifies the major strategied they use to exert influence.
upon the system. First, local,organizations useekthe
traditional andlegitimate channels (e.g., cOntacting,the.
school personnel in charge'about given, problems, also 4
through the PTA) trying to work with 'the school system
organization. Failing to achi0,te their gbals, a.nuMber,
of environMentalgroups reported using the 'political prodess
ti. try and exert-pre ssure:0 they and i
`mass meetings to which they invited schoolboardlitemktere;
42
"I,
0
_
39.
theyused-a lobby to try and influence the city council
and.state legislature; they solicited the 'support ofthe
mass media for their cause; they- evoked their considerable
members:Kip to send telegraiis and d-letiers to public officials.
Then anAttempt was made to "bore" fro® within: the bureau-
-cracy-of the environmental group tried to.work.quietly and
directly with memberof the school system bureaucracy..?- -. ,
hoping to achieve their objectives at lower hierarchial
levels; without going through the politici;ed process of
working.with those at the top of the organisation who
,seemed antagonistic and prejudicial. Failing it this level,
the external grodps,used a third party; someone respected
by the school -system sand whole community (e.g.', a university
person or someone from industry). Thrh tactic had as its
objective to use this person toget the other Side:to-the4
bargaining table so that the environmental group could be
seen as an eqqal powedr.-"Then, still trying to work. within
the system, these external groupe't4ied to go around the-
establishedhierarchy.of the school system by eliciting"
the support of higher sources of influende: the Courts,4 0
the mayor, the state department of education. It was Only
after they were frustrated at every level within the
,°system that they tried to sabotage directly the effoTts of
the school'system by disrupting, ongoing prograhs, by,;
.
. .
training studentsto disrupt-classes and other scholastic
activities; by strikingeby being selectively uncooperative.
and by leaking information to the press to be used against
the school system. Finally, some of these environmental
groups seceded from the school system and pet, up alternative
models worthy of the public's support. Other groups resorted
to threats of violence and then to actual violence in order
to try and get the .school system to respond to their.demands:c
first, they threatened-and then actually organised riots4
and heated protests; and fit4lly, they threatened to cause
harm to officials and to lb= .school buildings..
Theschodi system fought back with every resource at
its command. In the early stages,, ippeaseinent was tried,
offering the environmental groups small, inconsequential
5encessions to drop. their huge demands and support the4
status quo. When this failed to stem the tide of protests
and demands, the'systems marshalled their 164a1 mandates
to combat the problem-groups: ,Furthermore, they demanded
and were given (for the most part) the support'of the career
personnel within the organitions, who refused to collaborate
, with the unknowledgeablefflaymen on the, simple principle, that
they were non-profedsional and not competent to judge not
deal with the matter over which they were prOtesting. The4
systems reinforced their intransigent position on every
issue through biased public relations campaigns 'arid by
diversion, bringing t9 the fore othet importantuprojects
and concerns, ignoring the environmental groups'- problems
As though they were non-existent. They further weakened the
groups''impact, by .banning or outlawing them from the system,
4
44
.4
e
40.*
thereby discouraging the possibility of external funding
to support their fights By refusing to give the groups
public hearings or to interact with thenton any level, they
succeeded in eliminating much of their public visibility.
And, lastly, when faced with.threats and with actual
violence, the systems retaliated in kind, 'utilizing police
and in extreme cases, the Natiohal Guard.
Another more recent-'trend by client and consumer groups4
to bring external presture to bear,on the internalorgani-
zationv is the activity of scrutiny" groups, such as the.
Ralph Nader oiganization. These citizen watchdO -groups
exist to make private and.public organizations socially
responsible. The media have traditionally played this role
,and continue to :be a powerful environmental force but they
are joihed by this new forde. .The-purioses andtactics of
scrutiny groups are much diffeient fipm those :of the pro-.
tiestors and, in some ways, it is easier for the organization
to defend against the latter.
-Scrutiny groups seek after scarce, information that
might indict ap organization*and demonstrate that it is not4
adequately serving society. They infiltrate the system and,
through spying, get access to carefully gUaxded information.
They, investigate public records. They snoop and probe.
Such groups not only make an organization nervous-but'can
cause it to change or face undesikable consequences, (e.g.,
`boycott, loss of votes)
Another type of-client group that needs to .be mentioned
4 -3 C
is the regulating agendy. Accrediting agencies review
the school curriculum and have considerable impact on.it.
Government teaks and agencies investigate and regulate
business activities. Fact-finding committees keep watch
on the activities of pUbrie-Wgendiet:
Healthy organizations adapt to important.environmentai
demands but do so in a way that does' not disrupt their cord
functioni. They engage in strategic planni4toc affect
some orderly response to external Pressdres;-otherwise,
41-.
they manage by crisis. Many enterprises,seek to influence.
their environments as well (e.g., thr gh advertising) to
cause the impactmake the process even more ratlonal.
Aof the external environment is felt within the organization,
an objective is to be adaptive and innovative by managing.4
the conflictt caused by external pressures. Their object:
to be prepared and therefore not to be the victims of
environmental iohims and crises.
However, managing these typesof conflicts is very
difficult. The sets of enterprises comprising the relevant
environment lack a common authority to .bring them together,
and often compete for scarce resources (e.g., within the
industry). They are not compelled to collaborate in order
to be effective and must accept a far more abstract and
complex situation than if they were managing their own internal
35 ,disputes.
46
42..
Other
Scholars have mentioned other causes- of organizational
conflict that do not necessarily fall into the categories
mentioned above.. Mayer ;aid feels that, in addition to
the balance of power and the level of Interdependence
and communication-, the level of conflict is intensified
according to the organization's goals. This happene
-when organizational goals lead individuals and groups to
pursue mixed policies and when those goals give the organi-
zation'a more Oroblem7solving (treatment)" orientation
rather than a routinized or custodial orientation.36
Joe Kelly also: mentions the moire formal aspects of
organizational life that,cause conflict: the physical
shape of the building (e.g., the lack of privacy impinges
*on one's autonomy), the career structure, status incon-
-u
gruency, "who has what," torMai authOrity in the hierarchy,
organizational size, and the class struggle between workers
and managers.37
A number of'writers have discussed the inability to
communicate effectiyely as the chief contributor to organi-c
zational disagreements. Louis Poidy also believes, along
with many game ifiderists, that a more perfect exchange of
information allows, one to act more in hie own self-interest,
whereas ignorance forces the parties to agree on alternatives
of mutual.interest. Thus, perfect tommunication is not
always a desired state." However, Warren Schmidt and
47.
43
Robert Tannenbaum warn that unless .a dispute is based on
the same-set of perceived facts, conflicts could arise
simply because of misperceptions and uncommon information.39
While good communication is essential for managing
conflict, poor communication may onlybe a symptom of still
another underlying cause of disagreement. ,Communication
helps to resolve many of the disputes mentioned above,
but it is a tool for managing a conflict that is usually
caused by one of the six problems heretofore discusSed.
Finally, organizational conflicts' are attributed to
line versus staff misunderstandings,40 to the degree of
information about one another:s activities, to competition
and the need*to compete, to status differences to.,aonflicting
ideas and to personality clashes.44
IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION
Based on a valid diagnosis of the situation,
3.,.".1.'1 0%
Conflict Manager can thew intervene to help manage the
dispute. Conflict has been defined as energy expended in
reaction to felt tension. The objective of an intervenor.
is to make use of this energy for the,goodof the enterprise.
An individual worker or a group within the system, however,
- .may be most concerned about protecting seif-interests,
. winning, keeping a lower profile or promoting goOd working
relationships. Thus if the CM is to use this tension-energy
. productively, he must attempt to find a xesolution strategy
which matches the self interests of indiViduals, groups and
the organization. 48
.1
44.
Contingency Theory is one conceptual tool usefUl to
integrate-Mutual self - interests for managing, organizational
conflict. Theie are t4ee major conflict management
approaches from which =intervenor can draw to formUlate
-an- approach appropriate for resolving a dispute: collabora-
tion, bitgaining and.power-play. The appropriate use of
any one of these methods depondd on theindividual and
the organizational state.
-C011aboration: This theory maintains that people
should surface their dikferenc4s (get them out in the Open),
and then work on the problems until they .have attained
. mutually. .satisfactory solutions-. This approach assumes4,0
that people will be motivated to expend the time and energy
fot such - problem- solving activity. It tries ;6 exploit the
possible mutual gains of the parties,in the dispUid and
views the conflict as avreative force pushing View to1.
achieve an improved state.of affairs to which both sides
are fully committed. -
Bargaining: This mode for managing dbnflictsassumes'
that neither party will emerge satisfied from the con-
frontation but that bath, through negotiation, can get
something they do not have at the, start., or more of something
they need, usually by'giving up something of lesser impor7
tance. 4ne party generally wins more than the other; by
the skillfUl use of tactical trades, he can get the ifaximum
possible from thebther side. Sometimes the tactics used
.49
in trading are underhanded and 'create bad feelings..
the end, when an agreement is reached, it is usually
enforced by a written contract-with sanctions in case
non-compliance. In the event no agreement-is reached
In
. third-party mediator may be employed to bind the_sides.
eventual arbitratiOn.
Power-playl. This mode differs from the Other two_ .
approaches 'because its emphasis .s on self - interest..
Whereas, in colilboration,and.bardaining two sides
come together to try to resole their ioblems, When power
. is the doMinant mode, the actiohs are unilateral or in
of
a
45.
coalitions acting unilaterally. All,of the power technician's
resources are unleashed' against his opponent to win:on a
given issue or a long -range program. 'He gives neither
internal commitment nor does he agree to external sanctions
guaranteeing compliance to joint decisions.
Collaboration is the most preferred strategy for thet.
good of the enterprise because:. (I) it promotes authentic
interpersonal relations; (2) it is a creative force tor
innovation and-improvement; (3) it enhances feedback and
information flow, and (4) it has a way, of ameliorating the
climate of the organization so that.'there is more openness,
.trust, risk-taking and good feelings of integrity.
Bargaining is the second most preferred alternative.
It is an approach that, at the least, .brings the varties
together and it can lead to binding them together to.joint
50
3
q
46.
de isions. It- gets the substantive issues out on the -table
where they .can be better understood and acted Upon. It-7,
allows or interaction on the problem.-
Pow -plc, k is the least desirable method fok orgaiii-1 .
zational effectiveness --(although it may be _the most dekirple
.approach for individual who has the potential for winning)-.
a%sGenerally, agg' sive and hostile-.feelings exist between
those locked in a r struggle,.shutting.off communication
and interaction. Vi ious gossip may ensue, causing rumors
and otherwise distort g information. 'Al]. of this tends to
drive information underg ound so that the organization and
the parties involved cinno learn from their' experience
since there is little honest feedback. A large amount of
sabotage and non-compliance tak!s place which harms the
system. People acting in their otr self-interest often
subvert.. the organization.e
Serious cases of- individual stress lead to personal
preoccupation with "self," at thp.expense of the organi-
zation. The employeema, however, remain important to
the enterprise: if a selfish bargain is strnck whereby some
of his needs aid met' in idturn.for useful seiyice. Otherwise,
the person may ,have to be-fired.lor traniferred: In less
dramatic instances, a-more collaborative stance Can be
taken with unhappy individuals through counielingoaching,. .
and thirdparty consultation.
InstanCes-of external pressures are also more prone
51
et
to being fought using power or they can be resolved through
birgaining. Independent entities in conflict have no common-
., authority to bring them together, since they compete for
scarce resources and lack common purpose. To become more
collaborative, they need to establish power parity, find
ways= to enhance ,their mutual interests (perhaps by, fighting:
4
a common enemy), structure more independence, and pkovide
resources to support common efforts-and- skillful interactions.
Bargaining'it a method for winning power parity which,
when used effectively, permits the- parties to begin a'
co-equal relationship when it is achieved. To assume a.
trading position connotes equality, as each iArty recognizes
that the other has something of value tooffer and/or.
withhold: Acting in good faith, trust can then be estab-.
lished between both parties. _With such. a climate for0
collaboration, ,the parties can begin to plan, problem-
solve and carefully define their mutual interests.
For example, the author and his colleagues conducted
a bargaining intervention within an elementary school-.
"(between independent teaching teams) and changed the 0
balance of power to a conditioh of more power parity.,
This made it possible to increase the collaboration- effOrte
between the parties. 40 Once: power parity and interdependence'..
have been establ ished, open-systetsplanning schemes provide
technology for organization-environmental Collaboration.41
52.0
s.
s
O
O
Role conflicts can-be managed by matching the popydho*
logical expectations. of members- of the -role set, by' adlpting
the design ,Of the. work in such =a way that there is 4-o. role-
Overload and so-that.One-iseval ted- on the in -role `tasks
he,performs. This can be Accomplis d by team4,1iilding
Within the rOlegroUp to develop 'Diode es for effective'
communication, by conflict management, decisionMakIng,
goal-setting and-by planning, establishing', and Ohafiling
the norms and values. A:thirdpartiedbnpultant can. often6 4
help role group members by more objectively clarifying the
disputes., He -can do this-by structuring the time) place
and ground rdle'S for the encounter4,4eddby helping, the.
members find. solutions to° Problems by engaging In- an
exploratory process and encouraging- them to confront in a-,
skillful manner,.
Power struggles demand a somewhat different dollebora--
tive strategy: A pm can .resort to authority and -mandate
solution to. the problem: He can 4tpempt tb "co-opt the
influential parties inOrder to get them-to join the effort.c
He Can build coalitions .of influeniials: .He can develop a:
A"favor" system whereby others ogre- him debts of'gretitlAde
and recognize. he will 'be the source -of.. benefite--
thereby making them support his activities-
However, ;a Morecollaborative style than. any mentioned.
aboVe would be, to b#ild a climate wherein opetiness-;:trupt
and risk - taking, were rewarded. 'Workers 'would attempt to
a
0
0
4
exert their influence and.share their power agendas (self-
interests) quite openly in collaboriting witti.Jothers The
best ideas (not necessarily those4coming from the highest
.authority) would.prevail. Decisions would be diadetby the, .
group. People would_ be encouraged to- pattidipate, as
effectively as possible, in this problem- solving activity.
Increasing interdependence ups the stakes and makes
conflict. management more compelling and more apt to be.,
engaged in by the workers. By the same token, decreasing:,
interdependence leadi to conflicts which may have less-
consequence for the enterprise since theparties do not
have.to interact to accomplish important tasks. However,
decreasing interdependence may be a method in and of itself
to reduce the importanre of conflicts and, thus," to manage,
themr. 1f an organization,cari' afford to decrease inter-
dependence by the nature of its critical task as influenced
by the external environment, it may'vieti afailure to-
manage conflicts as simply lost opportunities for improvement
rather than threats to its lurvival.
Differentiation is a common manifestation lending..
itself to collaborative conflict management.AThere are various
, ways tO tesolve this phenomenon: by emphasizing common
purposes around' which the various brientations can coalesce;
by increasing the individual rewards for accomplishing the,
collective task; by encouraging skillful listening and0
communication sotgat differences are clarified and under'20
,stood; by engaging in a problem- solving- process maximizing
54;
A
1 0'-
.1
-
fJ
'A
O a
50._
* the resong06 of the various members; and lastly, by
tieing a consultant toLhele.the group work-through its'
differeftees: dditionally,. the use ir;.the hierarchy of
.,nositions, with the authority and infOrmation to.Malce
coordination an important priority helpi-the
Takities to achieve a state of collaboration.6
The followingligure suggests a mintingency, approach
to conflict Management.
FIGURE us CONFLICT MANAGEMENT cmcpE
boundary of the orbit arethoie:problemsC
r
which often Originate outside t4e,eystem and over 'Which
. it has little controls, At the of theptocela are
"instances of Coalicellhich lend.themailves to a more_.
collaboratiVe,approach: Mhe=collaborativerthod Will
a
C:
4
O
51.
also lead to more organizational improvement. =While
bargaining is the second most preferred CM mode, it is
less central to the orbit than collaboration. PowerPtadtics-...
maybe necessary (even functional) to 'deal with some-
problems- but,' in general, are to be applied only 'where
-aonditions do'not exist fora more long-term imprOvement
strategy.
For .example, external threatt which seek't6 destroy
the legitimacy of the enterprise (e.g., revolutionary,
movements, scrutiny activities) -,can be combatted -fling.. -
power tactics. This is als6-trde for serious individual
stress and for some internal power strugglei. 'Those
indiViduals with a high psychological need for power, a.
desire for winning'their interests at any cost or a .commit. . ,
I.
ment to hurting the organization, may need to be dealt- with
commensurately..
However,. bargaining may be the 'best strategy to use
under the following conditiodsi when power parity needs to
be established in order tb' wok* through a problem; when
external. pressures are such that a common .solletion to.the
problem is possible and .parties- are willing to-collaborate;
when individuals feeling moderate-tension want to strike a
more satisfactory personal contract with the system. Bar-
gaining is also important when resources are acarce and
.parties must compete for an absolute.
Without a doubt, for organizational health, colltboraiion
0
is the Most effeciiive way to manage conflicts. it is
true that collaborative methods lend themselves to some...
...
idstances of individual. straits and external pressure...
- Yet, this approach is best employed with .role disputes,
differentiation and iowe'tegualizktion alternatives to.. A
power sttuggles`under conditions ofthigh interdependence., .
Table-III below illustrates the various technologies
,applicable -.toto eadh major cause of conflict given the
three different approaches.'
I 9
52.
..
I . .
I
8....
; .
OW
a
.
TABLE III
CONFLI CT MANAGEMENT PARADIGM
_
Causes of Conflict
r
CM TECHNOLOGIES4-
.
*
.
Collaboration- ,Bargaining
.
Rider -'
..
External pressures
s
.
.
open systems plan-ring
.
.
.
. negotiation
.
.
force and threatsFlof-fortei.use of
laws co-optation,. strategic use .of
information, co-.
:alitimbuilding
'
.
. .
Inditrichal stress.
.
. ,,
1
touhseling)coaching,problem - solving-
.
contracting '
-..
VA .
.
'fire,
transfer,careful jobdescription
' -
,
Power struggles
.
.
-
build organiza-tonal climate,make decisionscloseto infot-mation source,best ideas pre --
vail, encourageparticipation,probleh-solving
negotiation,solve substan-tive issues ofscarce resource,allocation, es-tablish - power
parity
,
.
use of legitimate'authority,co- optation,
coalition build-ing, favor system
.
-
.
. .
,_
Low interdependence
, .
increasing groupinteraction.
negotiation tointer-
action
4.5e. of legitimateauthority, to
structure moreinteraction
,
Role disputes,differentiation,high interdependence
.
-
-
team building, .
;Communicationskills, problemsolving, con-frontive style,imaging, third-party consul-ration,- climate
4-
.
.
.
support with formalauthority andrewards
.
1158 Gs
Appendix III -whiCh,.follows is an :aitempt to describe"-
briefli the variousterMs- and technOlogieS in Table
In general, ithen the causes. of conflict ore. role- disputes,
_ differentiation, high interdependence - or saw forms of
power struggles, a collaborative- strategy "seems to be
most, effective.
We can conclude by stating, a siziple growid rule- Which
the Conflict Manager can use to guicie.iis.interVentionS.:
-assess the situation arid- then..aCt appropriately. As. Michel
Crozier has stated in a. Critique of the strictly rational-
And the strictly human relations approach to dispute.
settlement:
A human being, however, doesnot have on).$ a' hand. and a-
heart. He- also hai 'head,
which means-Ie. is. free_ to.pity 44 own gene...-Subordinates ens be ceeaide*44asIsee agents mho can discuss.-theft ean'probleavand beige*about then, 'who do. not onlyenhmit to a power structure but:also particigate in that .structure.-
.kanaging organizational -conflicts .situationallY
-allows' for the integration of the 'heart, the -hand and
the head in one of the 'lost. important' asPeCti of:
organizational life.
59
CN APPENDIX I
ti
55.
NAMES OF JOURNALS CORRESPONDING. TO 'LETTER ABBREVIATIONS
O
* HOR: The Harvard Business Review
AMJ: Academy_of Management JOurnal-.
4TUU California Management. Review
TCR: Teachers College 'Record .
AN: Administrator's Notebook
EAiS: EdUcational:Administration and .Supervision
EAQ: Educational- .Administration Quarterly
PAR; Public Administration Review
ASQ: Administrative Science Quarterly
JABS: Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science
JCR: Journal -of Conflict Resolution
"q
-60
-r
10,
t
V
APPEND/Xi /I
ARTICLES APPEARING IN JOURNALS-LISTED-IN TABLE -I
The Harvard Business Review (HBRiq
I. Directly-Related Articles
56.
F.J. Roethlisberger; *The Administrator's Skill: Communication,"Nov./Dec., 1953, 31, #6.
Wendell Johnson; "The Fateful Process of Ni. Talking toMr. B.," Jan./Feb.; 953, 31, #1.-.
Chris Argyris, "Human Problemswith Budgets,". Jan./Feb.,1953, 31,41.
William C. Schutz, "interpersonal Underworld," July /Aug.,1958, A6, #4.
Robert N. McMUtry, "Conflicts in Human Values," May/June,1963, 41, #3.
Warren H. Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum, "Man'agempnt ofDifferences,* Nov. /Dec., 19.60, 38, #6.
John A. Seiler, "Diagnosing /nterdepartmental COnflici,"Sept:/Oct., 1963, 41, #5.
David W. Ewing,,mTension'Can Be An Asset," Sept. /Oct., 19641.42, #5.
Abraham Zaleznick, "The Dynamics of Subordinancy," May /June,1965, 431 63.
F.J, Roethlisberger, "The Foreman: Master and Victim ofDouble Talk,*"Sept./Oct., 1965, 3, #5.
/sodOre Silver, "The Corporate Omb4daman," May/June; 1967,45, #3.
e.
, .
57.
Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsche "New Management Job:The Integrator,* Nov. /Dec., 1967, 45, #6.
Joe Kelley, "Make Conflidt Work for You," July/Aug., 1970,48, #4.
Harry Levinson, "COnflicts That Plague Family BusineSses,"Mar./Apr., 1971, 49, #2.
M. Scott Myers, "Overcoming Union Opposition to Job Enrich-ment,* May/JUne, 1971, 49, #3.
Alonzo McDonald,-*Conflict At The Summit: A'Deadly Game,"Mar./Apr., 1972,.50, #2.
Larry E. Greiner, "Evolution and Revolution As OrganizationsGrow," July /Aug., 1972, 50, #4. _
Richard E. Waltbn,' "How to Counter:Alienation In the Plant,"Nov., Dec., 19.72, 50, #6.
Robert N. McMurray,;"Power and the Ambitious Executive,"Noy./Dect, 1973, 51, #6.
-\
A
II. Tangentially-Related Article's
Elizabeth andFrancis Jennings, "Making Human Relations Work,"`Jan./Feb., 1951, 29, #1.
Carl R. Roger g and F.J. Roethlisberger, "Harriers and Gatewaysto Communication," July/Aug., 1952, 30, #4.
ti
Leonard Sales and George Strauss, "Conflicts Within the LocalUniont",Nov.., Dec.-, 1952, 30, #6..
Kenneth M. Thompson, "Hurdin Relations in Collective Bargaining,"Mar./Apr., 1953, 31, #2.
Irving J. Lee,,"Procedure for 'Coercing' Agreement," Jan. /Feb.,1954, 32, #1.
Chris Argyris,32, #5.
"Human Relations in a Hank," Sept-./Oct., 1954,
Verne J. KallejianT Irbing R. Weschler, and Robert Tannenbaum,"Managers in Transition," July/Aug., 1955,033, #4.
Robert N. McMurry,. "War and Peace in Labbr Relations," Nov./Dec.,1955, 33, #6. '
63
Chris Argyris, "Interpersbnal Barriers to Decision-Making,". Mar./Apr., 1966, 44, #2,84-97.
-Abraham Zaleznick, "Power and Politics in OrganizationalLife," May/June,_11970, 48, #3, 41-60.-
Edward W. Jones,. Jr., !What %Is Like. to- be a Black Manager,"July/Aug.-, 1973,. 51, #4.
C.F. Fertz and Joanne Hayman, "Progress For Women - -Men AreStill Mbre EqUal," Sept./Oct., 1973, 51, #5.
M. Barbara Boyle, "Equal Opportunity For Women Is SmartBusiness," Maylaune, 1973, 51, #3.
George M. Prince, "Creative Meetings Through Power Sharing;",July /Aug. 1972, 50, #4, 47-54.
Henry-B. Arthur, "On Rivalry in the Marketplace," July /Aug.,1972, 50, #5.
r.
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ *)
I. Directly-Related Articles
Joseph A. Litterer, "Conflict in Organization: A Re- Examination,"Sept. 4 1964, 9, #39.aLouis R. Pondy, "A Systems Theory of Organizational Conflict,"Ibid.
Henry. 0. Pruden, "Interorganizational Conflict,. Minkagte, andExchange: A Study of Industrial Salesmen," Sept., 1969, 12, #3.
James A. Ba -lasco and Joseph A. Alutlo,'"pine-Staff Conflicts:Some Impirical Insights," Dec., 1969, 12, #4.
Agthur E. Butler, Jr:, "Project Management: A Stuay, Of _ --OrganizatiOnal Conflict," Mar., 1973, 16,
.
II. Tangentially-Related Articles'
-Robert T. Gblembiewski and Arthei Blumberg, "The Laboratory a
Approach to Organization.Chinge: The Confrontation Design,"'June, 1968, 11, #2,-- . t.
,------------ .s3_,----
11.111
59.
California Management Review (CMR*)
Directly-Related Articles_
T.E. Stephenson, "The Causes of'Managitent Conflict,."". 2, #2, 90-97.i.
Richard Alan Goodman; "A Hidden Iatue in. Minority EMployment;°-1968, 11, #4, 27-30.
Robert J. House, "Role Conflict and Multiple. Authofity i40. Complex Organizations," 1969v 12, #4, 53-60.
James Gilbert Paltridge, "Organizational Conflict in Academia,"1970r 13, #3, 85-94.
E. Frank_Hartison and.Jamer E. Rosenzweig, "ProfessionalNorls and Organizational Goals: An Illusory Dichotomy,"Spring, 1972, 14; #3.
Richard B. Higgins, "Managerial Behavior in Upwardly Oriented-Organizations," Spring, 1972, 14, #3.
.
John Paul KoteerI-The Psychological Contract: Managing the, Joining-up Process," Spring, 1973, 15, #3.
Edwin M. Epstein, "Dimensions of Corporate Power, Part X,"Winter, 1973, 16, #2.
Akthur G. Butler, Jr., "Project Management, -A Study inOrganizational Conflict," March, l933].6, #1.
II. Tangentially4elated Articles
°--- -7., .
-William H. Knowles, "Human Relations. In Industry: Research.----- and Concepts," 1958, 1, #1, 87105....,
Pita Prasow, "Reducing the Risk's. of Labor Arbitration,"1958, 1, #3, 39-46.
Robert Tannenbaum, "Some Current Issues. in-Human Relations,"1959, 2, #2, 90-97.
' aca Z.
61 .
1 -
^: 7.1 ,..
.60.
C
Thomas A. Petit, "Managememt_.Ideology: Myth andReality4.°1960, 3, #2, 95-102.
William M. Fox, When Human Relations May 'Succeed and- theCompany rail," 1965, '8,-r.43, 19-24.
Paul Prasow and Edward Peters, -"The Development of JudicialArbitration in 'Labor-Management Disputesiw1966,il: #3,7-16.
.Wendell French, "Organization Developlent Objectives,Assumptions and Strategies,°19691.12, #2, 23-34.
-
Saul Gellerman, !Behavior-al Strategies," 1969, 124'42,45-51.
4
Kenneth-Gc-Goode, 'Can- the ilroAmeridanBe An'EffectiieExecutivelt 1970, 11, 41,-22=26.
Lyman K. -Randall, "CoMm6n Questions and-Tentative-AnswereRegarding Organization Develcipmenttle 1970, 131_ #34 45 -52.,
'Theodore V.,,Purcell, S.J'.4 and Irene W. Rodgers, "Young Black'Workers 1peak.Thkir:Minds4"-Summer, 1912, 14, #4.
Donald R. Domm and James E. Stafford, "Assimilating. Blacksinto the Organization-; °- Fall, 19724 15, #1.
David Moment and Delmar-Fisher/ "Managerial Career Developmentand the Geherational Confrontation4" Spring, 1973,,A5, 3-
Jay Hall, "Communicatioll Revisited," Spring, 1973, 151434
Gary -R. Gekmill and W.J. Heisler4,"Madhiavellianism AsFactor in- Managerial Job Strain, JOb.Satisfaction And. UpwardMobility," Mar04. 1912, 15 #1.
S. Pre kash Sethi, °The-Corporation and the-Church: Initi-'tuti:onal Conflict and Social Responsibility,* Fall, 1972;151. #14 (63-74) .
-or
is
Teachers College Record (TCR*)
II.. Tangentially-Related. Articles,
Edward B. Shils.and -C. Taylor Wliittier, "The 'Superintendent ,The School Board and Collective Negotiations-," Oct., 1967,#1, 43-61. 4
Harold Hodkinson, "Student Protest: ,An Insititutionai and.National Profile," May, 1970, 71,'4.4, 537-555.
Administrator's 'Notebook (AO)
0
I. Directly-Related Articles
Charles E. Bidwell, "Somp.Causes of,Conflice and Tension %Among.Teachers," March, 1956, 4, #7.
. R.J. Hills, "A New Concept of Staff Relationships," March;1960, 8, #7.
Stephen P. Hencley, "The Conflict Patterns .6t schbol Super7. intendents," May, 1960, 8, #9..
Alan F. Brown, 'Conflict and Stress in 'Administrative Rel.ation-ships," March; 1962, 10, #7.
J. Stephen Hazlett, "Sope Thoughts On. Educational COnflici,"Dec., 1968, 17, #4.
Jathes N. Liphapt, Ruisel-Gregg:trid Richard A. RossMiller,',"The School Board: Resolverof Conflict/1" April, 1969, 17., 48.
Edwin M. Bridges,'"Student Unrest-and Crisis Decision-Making,"Dec., 1969,.18, #4t,
John B. Weeres, "School-Community Coniliqt in a Large UrbanSchool System,"^May, 1071;.19, #9. ,
. J
\ .. .
\ II, .Tangentially-Related pArticles,,-;
. ...
317ohn' 11:14.*Andrews, "A Deterrent to HarMony Among_ TeaChers,. I .
q,41arch 1958, b I 47.
. ,...
'
141lia4 W. Savage, "The Administrator and Criticism ofEdUcation," Oct'., 1954, 3, 42.
Wesley A. Wildman, "Collective Action by Public SchoolTeacheri," Feb., 1963, 11, #6.
66
r
O
1
r.
Bernard= C. Watson; "The Principal: Forgotten Man inNegotiations,* Oct., 1966, 15, #2.
.
62.
Mark Hanson, "The Emerging Control Structure of Sohodise" .-
March le 1973, Vol. XXI, #2.,
Rainey Mgth, "Teachei Percepticalt of Power, Conflict andConsensgs," April 24, 19734 Vol,.XXI,.#4.
'
' .e
of e%
Rossell W. Meyers,. "Bureaucratic Theory, and tchOols,":Jan-, 14, 1972, Vol. XX, 5. .
e'r ..:
. , - te
.
I.''-
i ..
. . 4Educational Administration and Supervision-lAtS*1 _...
0. _
7
.1:6- II. Tangentially-Related Articles
. Joseph Resnic#, "The Administrator.and Teacher Adjustment,"Ian., 19571 43, #1.
'-4Educational Administration QuarterlyBAQi)
.
I. Dirictly-Related Articles.
..
Hill M. Walker, "The Superintendent's Use of Cooptation in.Handling Internal Interest and- Pressure drodps:.-Its Effebts-'and Consequences,'" Winter,= 1968, 4, #1, 32-44.: '
Donald L.-Sayan and 44..W. Charter's Jr.,-"A Replication Among '4School Principal's- of the Gross- Study Of 'Rae -Conflict .
Resolution, " Spring' 197r, 6, #2, 36-45%" 00A. William "Vantinex "Toward a theory of Collective -Negotiations,"Winter, 1972, 8, #1.
II: Tangentially - Related. Articles -', . _ .
..
Robert E. -am, "A Game Model Analysis of Gonflicts%of Interest-Situations in Administrationt" Autgranj.1M,.4,_411.A0.7_84._ -
. ',: d o. "
.
o' George Madden, "A TheoFetical Basis for Differentiating Formsof Collective Bargaining in Education," Spring, 1969, 5, #2,76-90. . .
0
Public'Admiristration Review (PAR *)
, Directly-Related Articles
G
O
Alan Itosenthal,.*Admini.strator-Teacher Relations: .garmoiXior Conflict?* June, 1967, .21, #2.
Brooklyn Derr, "Conflict Resolution in Organizations: -Viewsfiom the Field of Educational Administration," Sept./Oct._,,1972,.32,
.. . .
II. Tangentially-Related Articles ..2
. Jeptha A. Carrell, "The City Manager and His COuhci1: "SoUrOelg.of Conflict,* Dec., 1962, 22, #4. s.44- ;
. .
.. .
Donald C. Rowat, "Ombudsman foi NOrth,America,*.Dec:_, 104,"14, #4. . -
.
i
Arnold J. Auerbach, "Confrontation and Administrative ReSponsi,";Nov./Dec., 1969; 29, I6, 139-646.
o'
_Clyde J.. Wingfield, "Campus cohtlict,and Institutional Main-tenance.,-"Nov./Dec., 1969, 29, t6:.
Chris'Argyris, *Organization Man:. Rational and Self-Actualizing,"tJuly/Au4s, 1973.
,
Herbert A: Simon, "Organization Man: Rational or 'Self-Actualizing?* July/Aug., 1973.
Chris Argyris, *Some Limits of-Ragional Man Organizational Theory,"May/June, 1973.
Administrative-Science Quarterly (ASQ*)
1 Directly- Related Articles
Oscar Grusky, "Role Conflict in Organization," Mardh,4959,-3., #4, 452-472. .
James D. Thompson, "Organizational Management of Conflict,"March, 1960, 4,4 , 389r409.
.
Victor A. Thompson, "Hierarchy, Specialization and OrganizationalConflict," March, 961, 5, 485-01.
Mayer N. Zald, "Power Balance and, Staff Conflicts in Cor-rectional Institutions," 7, , J4be,
'William M. Evan, Superior-Subordinate Conflict in ReseirChOrganizations," June, 1965, 10,. # , . 4.
Richard E. Walton and JOhn M. Dutton, "The Management .ofInterdepartmental 'tonflict," March, 1969,,14, #1, 78-83.
68
0.0
.. .
Clagett_G,i4d.th.,. "Atompirative Analysis of Some Condit -ions0 . and COnseg, nces of Intra-Organizational Conflict,"March,
,1966, 10,1U,304-520. .
me.
fi
Louis R. Pondy, "Varieties-of Organizational Conflict,1969, 14, 114.
Monald" G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict,"-Dec.,. 1969, 14, #4. '
K. Dutton and lhopas P. toffertyiand Interdepartmental COnflict,"
,Richard- X. Aalton,.John"Organizational, ContextDec., 1969, 14, 4. #
.John R. RiZIO;, Robert 4..house, Sidney I. Lintzman, "RoleConflict And Ambiguktyjn Complex Orgainizations,"June, 1970,15,12,-150-163.
t'George B. Darkoriwald, Jr., "Organititionai Conflict inC011egesaftd-Universities," Dec., 1974 le,"" #4, 407-412.
Atobeit lwBonn, "Arbitration: An Alteriative System forHandling.Contract Relafed'Disputes," 17, #2, June 1972,254-264: -4ers
.ca .
Stuarto M..SChkidt and Thomas A. tochan, "Conflict: Toward-Cbnceptual Clarity," 17, #3, Sept.._ 1972, 359370. _
C
. .
John Child, "Strategies` of Control l-and OiganIttional Behavior,"
4.-,18, Mar.,1973, 1-17.
,Tangentially-Related ArticlesAf,
7*414.6 .4T*1!.;69
Robert Dubin, "Power and Union-Management Relations," JUne, 1957,?, #1,
*Amens Litwak and Lydia F. Hylton, "Interorganizationai Analysis:An_HyPothesiS on Coordinating Agencies," March, 1962, 6, #4,395-420:
IJ
Delbert id. .Miller and Fremont,A. Skull, Irk, , "The Prediaticin ofAdministrative Role Conflict Resolutions," Sept.; 1962, 7, # e143-1602. .
George-Strauss, "Tactics of Lateral Relationships: The Purchasing,Agent," 7, #2, 1903.
David Mechanic, "Sources of POwer of Lower Participants inComplex Organizatibns," 7, #2, 1963. .
.
'Fred E. ICatZ,"Explaining Informal Work Groups in'Complex .
Organizations: The Case for Autonomy in Structure," Sept., 1965,10, 12, 2042P.
° 69I
r
'Tv
65.
William A. Rushing, "Organizational Ruler and Surveillance,"March, 1966, 10, #4,423-443.
Donald I. Warren, 11-Tha Effects of Pqwei Bases and Peer Grotipa',on Conformity in FormalgOrganizations," Dec, i 1969, 14, #4.
Cornelius. J. Laiunars, "Strikes and Mutinies:" A Comparative.Study of Organizational Conflicts Between Rulers and Ruled,"Dec., 1969, /4, #4.
Henry Assae], Constructive Role of interorganizatiOnalConflict," Dec., 1969, 14, #4."
H. George Frederickson, "Role Occupancy. and Attitudes TowardLabor .Relations in.Government," Dec, 196.9, 14, #4.
o
Doug10 T. Hall and Roger Mansfield, "Organizational andIndividual Response 'to External Stress," Dec., 1971, 14, #4,533-547. ;
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS*) .
I. Directly-Related ArticlesA
Robert R. Blake, sane S. Mouton and. Richard L. Sloma, "TheUnion - Management Intergroup Laboratory," Jan./Feb./Mar., 1965,1. #1,'25-57.
Richard-E. Walton,c"interpersonal Confrontations and Basic'Third Party Functions," July /Aug. /.Sept., 1968, 4 #3,'327-344.
David W. Johnson and Roy J. Lewicki, -"The Initiation of Super- I
ordinate Goals,",Jan./Feb./Mar., 1969, 5, 9 -24.
,Robert R. Blake-and Jane S. Moutin, "The Fifth. Achievement,"Octl/Nov./Dec., 1970, 6, #4, 413-426,
Alchard E. Walton, "A Problem-Solving Woricsnot5 on,BOrderConflicts In Eastern Africa," Oct./Nov./Dec., 1970, 6, #4,453-489. .
Roy .J. Lewicki and Clayton P. Alderfer, "The Tension BetweenResearch and /ntervention in Intergroup Conflict," plus commentson this article',. July/Aug., 1973 9, #4.'
LeOnard D. Goodstein-and Ronald K. Boyer, "Crisis intervention_.a Municipal Agency." 43, May/June., 1972; 318-340.
Samuel A. Culbert, '"Using Researdh to Guide an OrganizationDeVelopment," 8, #2, Mar./Apr., 1972, 203-236.
,70.
-
0
Nei
60.
'II. Tangentially-Related Articles
Ole R. Nolsti, "East-West Conflict and Sib-Soviet Belations.,*Apr./May/June', 19 'l, #2, 115-130:
Chris Argyris, *Explorations in /fiterpersoni.s. Competence II,"July/Aug/Sept., 19656J, #31 255-269..
.
Robert T. 'Golembiewski and Arthur Biumbcrg, "Confrontation asa Training Design in Complex Organizations," Oct:/Nov./Dec.,.1967, 525-547.
Gilbert Levin andDavid D. Stein,- ."System- Intervention a.
school-community -Conflict," JUlyAug../Sept.., 1970, #,: 337-352.
Robert T. Golembiewski,'stokAs B. Carrigan, Walter. R. Mead, .Robert Munzenrider, Arthur Blumberg, "Toward Building Nó * WorkRelationships: An Action' besign tor a Critical Intervention,"Mar/Apr., 1972, 8, #2, 135-148. .
..
$ .. .
Ronald. G. Corwin, "Strategies of,Organitaiional,SurVital: The.Case of a' National Program for-Educational Reform (TeacheiCorps)," July/Aug.!,1972, 8,. #4, 451z-480'1
Journal Of Conflict Resolution (JCR*)
I. Directly-Related-Articles
Ann. Douglas, "The Peaceful Settlement of Industrial andIntergroup DisOutes," March, 1957, 1,"#1, 69-81.
4
Kenneth-Boulding, "Organization and Conflict," June, 1957,1, 12, 122-134. -
.,
William Aubert,."'Competition and -DisSensual. Two Types ofConflict and-of Conflict Resolution," March, 1963,-7-,, 1, 26.42.°
Ralph M. Gol4pan, NA Theory 0 Conflict Processes and Organi-zational Offices," -Sept., 1966, 10, #3, 3284-343.-
William M. Evan and John A. MacDougall, InterbrganizationalCOnflictt A Labor-Management Bargaining Experiment," Dec.,1964 11, #4, 398-411
Oran X. Young, "Intermediaries: Additional.Thoughte oWThirdVartits,"-16-#1, March,1972,:51-65-
Ronald J. Piaher, *Third Party Consultation; A Method,fer theStudy and ReZolution of Conflict," 16, #1, March, 1972, 6T-96.
df
-67.
/. Tangentially-Related Articles
Judson_ S. Brown, "Principles of Intrapersonal Conflict," June,1957, 135-154.
George Levinger, Kurt Lewin's Approach to Conflict and /tsResolution: A Review with Some Extensions," Dec" 1959, 1,#4, 329-r339.
Morton Deutsch, "Trust and Suspicion," Dec.:, 1958, 2. #4, 265-279.
Irving L. Janis, "Decisional Conflicts: A Theoretical Analysis,"March, 1959; 3, 11,
Irving L. Janis and Daniel Katz, "The Reduction. of intergroupHostility: Research Problems and Hypotheses," March, 1959;3, #1, 85.
Daniel-Katz, "Consistent Reactive Participation of Group Membetsand Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," March, 1959, 3,, lip 2840.
Robert R: Blake and Jane S. Mouton, "Comprehension of in andOutgroup Positions Under Intergroup Competition," lay., 1961,. 3,304-310.
Robert 0. Blood, Jr., 'Resolving Family- Conflidts,! June, 940,4, 12, 209-219.
-Robert C. North, Howard E. Koch,. Jr., and M. Zinner, "TheIntegrative Functions of Conflict," Dec., 1960, 4, #3, 355T-374.
Motton Deutsch and Robert M. Krauss, "Studies of InterpersonalBargaining," Matti', 1962, 6, #1, 52-76. .
Robert B. MKersies.Charles R. Perry and itichatd E. Walton,"interorganizational Bargaining in Labor Negotiations;" Dec.,1965, 9,'14, 463-481. ,
Barbara F. Muney and Morton Deutsch: "The Effects of RoleReversal Duking the Dis6ussion of OpposingNiewpoints," Sept.,1968, 12, 43, 345-,356. .
Burton B. Silver, "Social Mobility and Intergroup Antagonism,"A Simulation'," ec., 1973, Vol- XVII, 14.
Robert 'Ladner, Jr., "Strategic Interaction and Conflict," March, -1973, Vol; XVII, #1. * r
0
S.S. KoMOrita, "Concession Making and 'Conflict ResolUtion,': Dec..1913 Vol. XVII,
Kathleen Whmeister-and Daniel Druckman, "Determinants ofResolving a-Conflict of Interest," March, 1973, Vol. XV.YI, #1.
72.:
L
68.
John Cheney_, Thomas Hartford, Leonard Stilomon, *The. Effectsof Communicating Threats and- Promises Upon the Bargaining .
Process,* March, l972, Vol. 'XVI, -87, 91-107.
z
4
V'
73
O
a
0
APPENDIX III
GLOSSARY OF-UNCOMMON TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS
-Coaching:
risA Castunication ski.114:
Confrontation style:
Contracting:
69.
Helping a person by encouraging, advising;instructing, and otherwise aiding in theaccomplishment of a goal.
Learning how to listen, understand issues,explore verbal and non-verbal messages sothat the conflict can be worked productively.
Teaching people to value a style whichopenly surfaces- disagreements and then,.based on the data, attempt to confrontthe issues and solve the problems.
Setting psychological expectations andmaking agreements by explicitly dit-cussing agendas, wants, needs, quid, proquos and services.
-- ,,Co-optati : DiScouraging opposition by encouraging
opponents to join ...the orgarti_zation and,
o thereby, be forced to abide by the rules,norms anddecisions -they help create. 4
, This also means that the organizationmay 'have to 'allow itself to be influencedby the opposition in .order to attract
t.r them to join it.
,
O
. Cbunaeling: Engaging in a therapeutic relationshipwith a person to help him resolve (forhimSelf),,his own internal tensions.
Imaging: A 'procedure designed to uncover the- commonperceptions and -misperceptions of partiffin conflict so that the problems (isSuesi
are clearer; validated. and can .be used aslevers. for -managing- the, dispute.
74
e
Negotiation:
70.
A procedure, varying in its degree offormalityt, for deciding suhttantive issuesin a conflict and mechanisms to ensureresoldtion. It implies giVezand--take
-compromise.
Open systems planning: Various methods for including .parts ofthe external environment in the internaldedisioit making of the organization (e.g.the charette),.
Ctrganizational
Power parity:r
Prcblem solving:
%am building':
9
The norms, beliefs, values and rewarded=behaviors which constitute informal lawsin the enterprise.- If the climate supportstaking'risks,
notexample, risk-oriented,
workers will not hesitate to Stake them.
Trying to gain advantages through, con-frontation; the amassing of ,resources;demonstrating strength.; .a feeling of beingtreated as a peer or equal' on given' issuesas well as in the general climate.,
Openly sharing information (includingconflicts and anger). and. expanding energyto try to arrive at a common and creativesolution to a problem benefiting bothparties. A more Or. lest Sophisticatedprocedure can be used to arrive at asolution.
Building skint, aitodUctive climate,.good4hterpersonal relations, and conceptualUnderstanding within the work group sothat it can use conflict producing, energyto accomplish their tasks creatively.
Third-party cansultaiion: The use of someone both skilled (knowledgeable)and outside the immediate dispite to listento the qbkflict and :intervene in order tohelp the parties manage their problems moreproductively.
V
71.
FOOTNOTES
1Kenneth W. 'Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict -Management," Working
Paper 74-3, Human- Syttems Development Study Center,-Graduate School.of Nhirageient, UCLA, 1974;- Clinton. F. Fink, liome. Conceptdal:Diffi--culties in the Theory y-of Social COnflict,'"-Journaltof Conflict
Resolution, 12,December, 1968, 412-460; Louis R. Poody, "OrganizationalConflict: Concepts- and Models, "-Administrative Sciericejluarterly, 12,'September, 1967,-296-320.
aRichard A. Schmuck et. al., Handbook of-Okganizatidn-Develop-
ment In Schools (Palo Alto: National-Press, 1972),; Toe Kelley, "WeConflict Work for You," Harvard Business Review; 402, Jdly/August1970, 103-113;_ Robert =R.- Blake- and Jane S. Manton; "The Fifth Achieve-ment," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, #4,. 1970, 413;426..
-3Paul RAdwrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environ-ment (Harvard, 1967)-; John Morse and Jay 'W: Lorsch, "BeyondTheory17Harirata Business, Review, May /June, 19704 Jay W. Icasch. and: .
Stephen Allen."11, Managing Diversity and Interdependence Oiarvard,1973); C. 'Brooklyn -Derr and John J. Gabarro,'"An.OrganizationalContingency Theory. for Education," .Educational-AdministrationQuarterly, 8,_02, 1972; John J. Gabarroi "Diagnosing Organization-Environment "Fit'--implications foir Organization-Development,"Education and Urban Society, February, 1974.
-
4Edgar H. Schein, Otganizatiohal Psychology (Englemiod Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1970).
5'John Paul Kotter,."The Psychological Contract: Managing the
Joining-up_Processe," California Management Review, 15,,#3, Spring1973, 91404'.
weV
Chris Aygyris, Understanding Organizational Behavior (Homewood,0 Illinois: Erwin- Dorsey Press, 1960).
7Harry Levinson, Mario-Management and Mental Health (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1-067).
8See Kenneth E. Boulding, "Organization' and Conflict," Journalof Conflict Resolution, June 1957, 2, 122-134; Robert N. *Murray,'"Conflicts in Human Values," Harvard Business Review, May/June, 1963,41. 130-145.
7.6 .
r 7-2.S.
9See Abraham Zaleznick, "The Dynaniics of Subordinancy," HarvardBusiness. Review, May/June, 1965, 43, 119-131; and Victor A: Thompson,''Hierarchy, Specialization. and Organizational 'Conflict," AdministrativeScience Quarterly; -March, 1961, 485521.
1°See James D. licupson, "Organizational Manageinent of Conflict,PAdministrative Science Quarterly, Arch, 1960, 4, 389-409; LeonardBerkowitz, 'Frustrations, Comparisons and Other Sources of Emptional .
Arousal as Contributors to Social Unrest," The Journal of Social_ Issues,Vol. 28, 1, 1972, 77-91.
11 -ChrisArgyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading,
Addison- Wesley, 1970), 38-43;
12See Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social nychology of,
Organizations (New VOrk: John Wiley, 1966) , p. 174.
13Ibid. p. 198.
14Robbrt Ardrey, Territorial Imperative (New York: .Dell
Publishing Company, 1966).
1 5David C. McClelland, "The Two Faces -of
International Affairs, XKIV, 1, 1970.Journal of
16mi.-che.1 Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago:
UniVersity of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 145.
17Antony Jay, Maria iat and..Machiavelli: An -Inquiiv-_into the
Polities of Corporate Life York: Holt; Rinehart. a.ffinston, 1967).
18See particularly'Tom Burns and.G.M. Stalker, The Manageirent
cif Innovation. (London: Tavistock Institute, 1961) ;- Joanne Woodward,Industrial Organization (London: -Oxfoird University, Press, 1965);
-Edgard Harvey:, "Technology and Structure of Organizatibn," AmericanSociological Review, 33,, 2. (April, 1968., 247 -258; Charles rrit,"A Framework for the Comparative Analysis -of COmplex -Organizations,"American Saciolo4cal Review, 32, 2, (April, 1967), 194-208; A.K.Rice; The Enterprise- and Its Environment (London: Tavistock Institute,1963); Lawrenc%and Lorsch, m. cit.; and James D. Thompion,prgani-zations In Action .(New Ybrk:McCiTiw-Hill, 1967).
4
1.9Lawrenc`b and Lorsch, Organization and Environment, m. citp. 186-.210.
e
20See F.E. Emery and -E.L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of Organi-
zational Environment," Human Relations, 18,'1 (February, 1965), 21-32;
77
73.
and Wiliam Dill, "The Impact. of Erivironment on -OrganizationalDevelopment" in Sydney Marlick and E:1-1. Van New Conceitsand Issues in Administrative Behavior, (Englewood Cliffs: -PrenticeHall, 1962) ; Thompson-,. p. cit.
21See Sums and- Stalker,, a.. cit.., p.e 96;-pp. 119 -120,139440, 232-234. -
.22gee Emery and Trist,. p. -cit.; William Dill, "Erivircannentas an Influence on Managerial Autonomy," Achinnistrative. Science ._
rterl 2, 1958, 399-443;, ThOMpsce, cit.:, pp. 72,73; Shirleyerre rry, wthe, Evolution of Organization 'firoianents," Administrative
'Science Quarterly,, -12, 4- -.March, 1968) 590-613;. and William. Starbucic,"Organizational Gra/tit and Development,"- in James .Match(ed.,), Handbookof Organizations (Chidago: Rand .McNally;- .1965).; pp- 467-468-
23See Lawrence and Lorsch, cit., "Differentiation andIntegration in 'Coriiplex Organizations,'" rninistrative Science.uarterly,. 12, , June 1967, pp. 1 -47-; .Developing Organizations:
Diagnosis and Action (ReadingMass.: Addison- Wesley, -1969); borschandlawrence, ed., Studies in Organizational Design (Homewood, Ill.:Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 197p;* and Jay W-.* Lorsch,' Product Innovationand Organization (New York: McMillan, 1965).
24Ste Lawrence and Lorsch, ibid. Several others have -alsopointed out that differentiation by organizations_ facing. cosidex-environments is a precondition to survival- and effettiveness. . Workingfrom both an open system model and a P4rsonian ft-asp of refetence, Katzand Khan have theorized that in order to survive, an 'organitationdifferentiates, itself into 'several subsyttems, .'Kat.z ,andlchan, TheSocial Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley,,and1966J, pp. 45-5-456. Rice and Miller and their associates at the.Tavistock Institute haVe theorized that organizations differentiatethemselves to perforit the "primary task," the tesk-whia theorganization must do .to survive: A.K. Rice, The Enterprise-and Its
-Enviroivneniks (London: Tavistock Publicatiorta-,, 1963) pp.: 190-191;E.J. 'Technology,: Territory. and Time: the Internal.Differen-tiation of Complex Production- System's;" Human Relations, 12, 243.272.
25See Lawrence and Lorsch, (1967) pp. A7.48. Differentiation,between .subtinits makes integratiCin -of effort difficult because itincreases the potential conflitt -between, subunits. Walton and Duttonhave made this point in a review :of the literature on interdepartmental...conflict. Richard Walton and John Dutton, "Management of InterclepartMentalConflict: Model and Review," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.. 12',3, December,_ 1967, pp.,, 337-395. Similarly, ,March and Simon have .
explained -the tendency which each subunit -has to pursue it own sub -goals at the expense of other organizational .goals as- a_ necessaryconsequence of the cognitive, limitations of humans -as decision makers:
'78
(74..
See Jaws March and Hertiett Simon, Orsanizations .(New York:- John Wiley,1958), pp. 151 -154. OiganizatiOnal differentiation; -as Lawrence -andLorsch have defined it, ia4more extentive,elaXioration.-of the sameconcept because it also includes- the c.onsequeric,es .of-differeinces in .
-work styles and other orientations, idtich. are source_ a of difficulty ininterunit relaiionships-. A detailed explanation of their methodologycan- be -found in Lawren0e- and Wreck Cit., 0: :247,08..4
-
26see.,La- .and Limsdi, ibid., p..91..,..11
27Ibid.., -pp. 151-156.
28James D. Thompson, m. cit.
cp,
-29.
. ..
Todd R. LaPorte,. "Conditions of _Strain and Accoapodation inInduttrial Research Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly,
. June, 1965, 10, 21-38.4,
38Harrison White, "Management of Conflict and- SociometricStructure," The American Journal of Sociology-, 07,,165.7199:
31Antony,Jay,- cit. Herbert. A.. Shepart, "Innovation-Resisting. and Innovation-Picitis Organizations," in Warren G. *Bennis,Kemteth D. Benne and Robert Chin, The Planning. of (hanger (New York:'Holt, Rinehart and' Ninston;---1969)-;~p. 5Z0;. Antony Down, InsideBureaucracy (Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1969).. p. 147ran 'MichelCrozier, m. pp.. 160481.
32Argyris,
33...waiter Buckley, Sociology and Mdern Systems Theory (Engle-wood Cliffs, Prentice4lal1, 1967), p. -50.
34C. Biooklyn Derr; "An Organizational Analysis of the' BostonSchool Department," an unpublished Ed.P. Thesis, the Harvard,GraduateSchool of Education,1971.
35Richard-E. Walton; "Inietorganizational Decisioh Making andIdentity :Conflict," Special Technical Report 02 (The HarvardBusiness School, Division' of Research; 'March,- 1969) ; Howard,-Aldrich","OrganizatiCoal -Boundaries and 1#erorganiiationai .Conflict," .HumanRelations, 24, 4, August, 971; Eigend Litwak and -Lydia F. "Byltoi
ITTITorganitational Analysis; kifypothesis on Coordinating Agencies,"Administrative Science Quarterly-, 6; .March, 1962..
36NWyer N. Zald, "Power Balance and"Staff C6nflicts inCorrectional Institutions;"."-Aftinistrative Science Quarterly, June,1962, 7, pp. 22 -49. r-
---7,9.
-t
. 75/
37Joe Kelley., "Make Conflict Work for You," Harvard Business
Review, Jubrs/AugUst, 1970, pp. 103 -113.
38See Louis R. Pondy, "Varieties of.Organizational Conflict,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, . eCember, 1969, 14, 4.
39Warren H.,Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum, 94anagement of
Differences,"- Harvard. Business Review, November/December, 1960,pp. 107-115.
400nline'and;taff conflicts, see E.: Rhenman, L. Strombeig
and G. Wasterlund, Conflict and Cooperation in .Business Organizations,(New York:. John Wiley;, 1970); James A4 Belasco and Joseph A. Aluttoi"Line-Staff Conflicts: 'Some EmpiricalInsights," Academy of Manage-ment Journal, Decemher,.1969, 12, pp. 469-477.
41C."Brooklyn Derr, PSurfaeing.and Managing Organizational
Power," 0D Practitioner,'. 4, 2', 1972.
110Peri SYstient:s and Traditional Hierarchies,"
A Working Paper, Graduate Schbol of Management arid. Institute"ForDevelopmental 021ganizationA UCIA, .September, 197Z. °
43Sed Crozier, St. it., pp. 149-150-
Af
t
.80
00
a
Initial Distribution- List.....--.
Defense Documentation CenterCameron Station .
-Alexandria, Virginiama.
Bert Kiiig, Robert Guthrie, John Nega$Office of Naval ResearchOrganizational Effectiveness ProgramONR 452Ballston Center ibwer #1800 N. Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22304
Ma.
N
Naval Personnel Research and Development CenterEd. Sficmas rSan Die, Cal. 92152
i Naval Personnel Research. arid Develop CenterManagement of People and, OrganizationsSan Diego, Cal. 92152
411 ..
. ...
- .
a
. ..'DeputY Chief of Naval Operations
for Manpower.(OP41)_Arlington AnnexWashington, D. C. 20370
buieau of Naval .Personnel
(Pers 62 andPers 65).Arlington AnnexWathihgton,,D. C. 20370
LibraryNaval Rostgraduate School.Monterey, 'CA 93940
Capt. Peter Flyrin--Deputy Director PMBureau of Medecine and SurgeryWashington, P. C.
ArnW Research InstituteConmohwealth Bldg. .
1300. Wilson Blvd.Rosalyn, VA 22209
ti
.
1
*.
Military Assistant For Human ResourcesOAD CE & 1,3).ODDR. & E
pehtagpn 3D1,29
Washington; D. C. 20301'
4 ...,,..
v
.
-76
.
.
411
s
e
Hiznan Performance DivisionCode-'44-
-Navy Medical R&D CommandBethesda, Maryland 20014
1
Officeof Deputy Chief of Staff For Personnel f.. ., -, 1Research OfficeDARE PBR
.
Washington.,.D. C. 20310
Air University LibraryLSE 9110 . o
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 ,o
. 0
Office -of Civilian Manpower Managiieht
Perpsorinel Management -Evaluation Wench_ (72)
Washington, D. C. 20390
Training OfficerHuman Resource Management CenterRICSan Diego, Cal. 92133
airector, ETRPDCpde N.33CNETNaval Air StatiOnPensacola, Fla. 32508
ConmanderOrganization DevelopmentPt. Ord, Cal. 93940
0
0
Z. A. Haute), 4
1
s
s'
3.
0
NaVal. Personnel and Training -Research Center ,
Code 30/Sate Diego, Cal. 95152
CommanderHRMC
05621 Tidewater Dr. 4
-o-''North*, Va 23509
4
Ccurnander}MCBid. 304naval Training Center _
San Diego, Cal. '923a 104
4.4. 01Caansndei.
o Pearl Harbor Naval Station-FPO San ftstecisco, Cal. 96601
0
fs.
#, If1 tire ;"..'t
,10 ',A I)!
p
c.
f04 i % . 0e. . i 82 .
477. a
Cdimander-HNC13iiirean of Naval. Researc hWashington, D C. 20370
DIrectOr!ItimanItesciurcea Research713 Architect Bldg:11100 Wilson B1id._
ArlingtOn, Va. .22209
Chemin.BehaVioria Science-Dept.Na.Val Caimand and Mgt. Dilision.
. O. S. Naval Academy. Lute Hall
211102-.
Rudy Winston '
Organizational peha'vidrNavy -War. College,ProVidence, Rhilde :Island 02E140
Ctianander
4113WIDAlamecla*_Naval'Air Station
-AlaMeda, 911501
Professorlilchael DeanCod '55.Naval, Postgraduate SchoolMont y_, "Cal. 939110
Professor Carson &gang . *
_ Ccde 55Naval. Postgrakite School . .'Montex4ey, gal, 939110- t
'Professor' ;David A. atitradyWO .55
...
" . . .
-Naval Postgraduate Son:ialMonterey, Cal:-:-.939110.7. .*
I -Professor flphArd EasterCode. -55 ,
. _
Nava] Postgraduate SchoollenntereY2 Cal, 939110
Professor Douglas CourtneyCade, 55 . .
..
, Naval Pottgraduki .Sehool..
Monterey, Cal.. 939110 4
OftV. S..A.lier14
. Code- 55: &Iva Post date School
lb* eras Cal. 9010
,
.*
I ..
. 78
C
Professor- Williath Hap, -.Code 55 P
Naval Postgeaduate SchoolMonterey, Cal. 939110
.. Professor Tam. Wyatt'Code 55
.
Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, Cal 939110
: ,
r,-
7-4
Professor Gerald-MusgraveCede 55Naval Postgradiate Sdhcol
.i.
.0.
MOnterey, Cal; 939110a
at Richard McGonigalCdde 5 , I,
Nays.], Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, Cal. 09110
Proft..or John Senger -
Code 55Naval Postgraduate 'School-.Monterey; Cal. 93940
Professor Ches ter *Ight.'Code- 55 -
Naval Postgraduate School_.' . ,,
For HuAan 'Goals CCUrse
- Dean of -Research INaval Postgraduate sohdoi.monterey, CA' 93940
-..
t
,
r
1
50
, ..,
:
44
84, .
79'. ..
- .
r
6.