Of Organizational Conflict: Diagnosis

Home , Conflict (process), Office, Organization, Organizational behavior, Organizational conflict

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-P75062

pus 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

1BSTR1CT Six major causes .of organizational conflict (individual stress, role conflict, power struggles, differentiation, interdependence, and external pressures) are ,delineated; implications for managing these conflicts using collaboration, bargaining, and power plays are pointed out; a conflict management paradig pointing out which mode of conflict management wor:.s best for which cause is presented; and literature on organiiational conflict management is referenced. (luthor /IRT)

^ -

*********************************************************************i* 1. Documents acquired by EAIC,inclade .any iniormal unpublished * materials not available from other sources.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' U $. OgraRTSENT Of pa M.TH. EDUCATIONtvgcsikea . 'worm art.INSTITUTE of taucATKAI 7.0S 00Cumeta7 HAS Attu Agra° -N13-39V 15062 OutE0 exAm. As A etervED F *OM brescow.OAOftGArriZATION0010101 AT.PG IT OurTSOF IE*00420100.4 STATED 00 HOT reCESSAtew.same seta OF FrOAL irA DONAL IloST.r TV SC Of EOutArrOA PosT1O.100poucv ....+' . I 0

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE ISCROOt

"onterey3alifornia: .. . 4 ir

r . .

.; c

MAJOR CAUSES OF .CIRGANIZICIONAL CONFLICT: . DIAliN04.3 FOR ACTION C. Eiroold.yn Derr -*

.1. . e

June* 1975 0 0

Approved for pul=release; distribution unlipited

2 . . NAVAL PC64113RAIXIATE_SCHCOL Iteiterey, CAlifornia .% .

Bear Adidral lidvin Linder .. JaC)c yc,. Hoisting- Superintaident . Provost 02.

.41 . '10

Ibis is a conceptual iKaidng.paper. "Reproductiat of all oar part ortlxts-repcat # authorized. O. This _report was prepared-by:

C. atocederrom Associate Professor .of-Margyzement . C. d

lb . d Released, by:

Dean_ a Reeearch n

f . a .. a et-

4 ,, 1 UNCLASSIFIED .SECURITY CLASSWICATUNI Olr THIS PAGE Mei Data Eafklemg READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORTv DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORS! I. REPORT HUMMER 2. GOVT ACCESSION. MO.3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG. HUMBER 4. TITLE (***344//do) 0 G. TYPE oenubost A PERIOD"COVeRSO 1 ' L MAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMM: working paper DIN:MOUS FOli AC1TOM r11. PERFORMIMOO RtPORTtoriszn 0. -.... . =1, ru mon(e) - - I.coorns.cropGRANT NUMISCION

. Q. Brooklyn Derr .

. O.enrommiaORGANIZATION MAME ANO ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM-EI.ENE NT PROJEC T. TASK AREA It MORK UNIT HUNGERS . , MvalPostgraduateSchool . . Monterey, California 93940. 4 . H. CONTINOLyNG OFFICE MAMA AND ADDRESS 12. -REPORT OAT' 1 Arne, 1975 13.MUMMEROI PAGES 79_ . 14. .MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 ADDRESS(/' latforied kyles CemitellIng 0111..) IS. SECURE CUASS. (el We now) - Unclassified . 'IS*. raltAINICATION7DOINGNAO/NG. . *o .,

OISTRNOuTION STATEMENT PO Nay Raport)

. Approved far public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMOIllor the &bolted antrat1111044.'H Itiffosset kers *.peel) 1

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IL ,KEY WORDS (0.10*. al 1f 01.1.11 alp 11 seemoy awl Odsoelly y Acir assolney Conflictmanagementorganization deyelornent ingalai stress differentiation organizational conflict organizational -theory role conflicts external pressures Conflict *ablution contingenCy theory power struggles interdependence. . 7f.AOSTRACT lemika. a t Ans* aS11 owermay oaf kfronalr,ey Week *grind Six major causes of organizational conflict are delineated; implications for managing these conflicts using collaboration, bargaining and power plays are pointed out; a conflict management -paradigm pointing out whichmode of conflictmanagement works best for which cause is. presented; literature on ,organizational conflictramnagapent is reference Wm.

-. P

DO I ,427,19 1473 -BOOM* Op I NOV IS ISOSSOUCTS 0102.014.41401.1 ITINGLAsnrim ,SiCuRifIr CLAINne *nonOf MS PASCOE*, Dee tafere) ./ T.

MAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONALCONFLICT:" DIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION .30 6

(.0 C. Brooklyn Derr Graduate School of Education UCLA

O 0

NAVAL. POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY. CALIFORNIA93940

4." C. BROOKLYN DEAR ". AOMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES , ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR 4011446.267Wi594

IV,

O 5

0 s

,0 4

MAJOR CAUSES.4F.ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

DIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION

. -

' 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 organization 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 ifit 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 carof and no rewards. ' This is the primary and motivating distinctioneetween

career`- oriented otganizational conflict and,confli.qt. 7.

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

% i 3.

oD Xpe emphasis in this article is not on the uniqueness

. . between the iwo.typesof 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-1 1. 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 1 referrent. 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. 1

-o o., FIELDS' OF INTEREST AND- SCHOOLS OF. THOUGHT

The management of organizational conflict,

as a - special subfieid ofconflict

. resolutiOn, has come to be much studied and discuiied,

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' 4r

4.,

to'note that more has beenwritten to business and

academic audiences than ItopraCtitioners in either - .- . . . education or pulgic.admibistrationt A'/n fact, the . . ; . Harvard _Business RevIew as.run many .. more article's for practitioners thanthe other comparable journals,

and the AdministrativeScience Quarterly Was prihted I.* far more articleson this subject for academicians.

V .4

.. 4 , e) '

. . et / . TABLE I S.

Journal Articleson:Organizatiohal Conflict

..1

r PUBLIC . BUSINESS ACADEMIC EDUCATION ADMINIS- .4 TRATION PAR* JABS* JCR* HBR*. . .CMR* TCR* AN* EAU!' ASQ*

1951-731965-731958 -73,1965-731952-7319517'731965-73 1950-731956-731965-731957-73

e Directly-Related Articles* 19 9 0 '3 2 15 . 7:

O s C. - 4 . Tangentially- 1. Related " 16 2 7 1 7 12 7 Articles* I/.. 6 4 I

SEE APPENDICES. I 4N11

s 5

e 4 0

"Directly- related" articlesare thOsie that concen-

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 whatwe 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. 0 6 Only nine directly-related articles were printed inthe

1950's, while sixty-seven articles have appeared since 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;

L Vr iaRECTLY-RELATED ART ICLES APPEALED `ABLE II ON TyESE DUES . 7, 9 s BUSINESS EDUCATION ADMINIS-.130341 'ACADEMIC .953(3) "HBR* AM.T* TCR* 1956 AN* EMS* EAO* TRATION PAR'S JABS* ' JCR* NP.* 1964.1963(2)Isis1960 1959 '1960(2)1962 19601962,19611959 19631957(2) 1967(2)1965)- 1966 (2) 1967 19651966 1965 196761966 1970 1969(2) 1970'1969Ig68 1970.1968 X9701969(4) 19691968 ° 19731972(3)1971(2) _ - 197.3 1973(3)1972(2) 1972 1972' 19731972(2)1971.. r 1970(2)19731972(2) 1970(2) f O , . The literature moistly describes opinionsabort the genesis of biganixational conflict. Since 1065, however, - .

iiereetas been an.emphasison effective action- to - .manage it. TheMostpfeValent, aRproach is the collaborative one . asclibedto byorganiiation development ,(OD) pgopodenti:

They fioihtout that:. conflict is .neither good nor-bad bUta

normal cons. nonce of orgenitational life; 'that it occurs.ionot

iixortasit es-bow it ismanaged. The method 'that leads to

ffeckivenesp. .1s.Annmbick vier. .tbe_aiipute-as-crentiwer_tension -

ineify:vbiob, broiight to the -surface andpobienSolved-,can

;l ::to innovation, better intettersonal telationships and increased

ptcidundifity..2- - . . . AMore recent -approach to organizational design oand

fo; match. the. internal 'tasks and- structure to the demands of

the external environment. ,This...schOO1 of thodihtcontends . ..

. th4t.: theft- is no-"besetway to design "-,he enterpriae, since . . - ,. ..' -'..... ippropriate,structuge, for;enanple,is contingentUpon the: task, . .- the environment and the needs of individuals and groups workingis, . . , the erten. The theor-yaand _empirical research. aupporting d a . this. point,- ofView has resulted bodypfliterature

tiown as '"Contingency. Theory.:P3'Qne rule ofthumb is

that: the :pieseriptionfoi .iiprowenent_oustbeappropriateand,

therefore, cilia onlybensde-after a careful diasktsis.

A 9.

In a Contingency Approach, effective conflict manage-

' -,went depends on an in-depth assessment of the major 'causes

of the dispute.

_ Almost any effective action will depend on a valid

. and useful diagnosis of the problem(s). Whether the

research suppOits a more normative (collaborative) OD 0 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- 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.

0 ------

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 .

a groups against one:-another to achieve vtheir own selfish

objectives; (4) the misunderstandings and disagreements

0 f . 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 r its internal order.

INDXVIDUAL STRESb.

× 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 11.

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.,

requiringindividual expertise that comes from special

training,the product. of whidh can only be judged by

others with similar -knoiiledgerbe4414e-the 'conditions-

. and emphasis of the position vary according to the

4 organizations' -needs and thereforecannot be-defined.

lens in'liis field of expertisethat 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. .p

emphasis reqUired by. the- Organization. 1 A Ifi other instanc4, "fhe recruit himself is 'so, intent

,on achieving his ownobjectives -that he interpretk phe

recruiters messages- to 'suit himself.-Be ig later -dieap*- 4. pointed to discover that it is not possible to -kedetine.

4. 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 I% 12.

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. 4, Research by SOhe in and-Kottek5stressesthat A A worker's satisfaction and productivity in hiafirst year

.is./argely determined by the degree to which his expectations

and those of the organization match._ kottees work under- scoresthe IMPortinCe' IfOr employee activation) of %matching expectations even over the possibility of an uqexpected 6 bbonus Argyris; and Levinson7have also stressed the importance of stated and unstated expectationsas a

powerful determinant of organizational behavior. ) . /

Values

It is increasingly commonplace for -an employee's

C.* '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 SO, 2 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 publicationand

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, andthose of organization,'

he undergoes person4l stress that may well affect-his

performance ancicause difficulties fo-.7';theenterpriie.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 leadership 1 0

1.8 I

: 14.

style in particular, will determine the extent to which

there exists personal stress in the subordinate that 9 could lead to organization conflict.

Some persons have deep, psychological needs to

dominate or control. Such a type can be impulsive-and

e 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 its i0 A . 0 He even avoids interaction and participation fort,feak . ..4 J . s _ d

. that he will then be forced to follow the7.grOup'.

.- . - %, , decision instead of acting independently. Such an employee . , . .-% . . . . seeks to build barricadesaround himbeIf in order to . .. enjoy maximum autonomy.. . p

O ,4.4; Relative Deprivation i

-People-_-frequently-evaluate.theirmell4ming in .

relative rather than absolute tetras. They compare them-

..- igolves with others and their apparent:.stlinding' in the,

Ore )/(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 whichsetahe prefers. a Such conditions exist in a complex organization. _people

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 , 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 - 0 . 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._ t. . . e . . SelfrEsteem .4.1. . .

_._ __ _ . Chris' Argyris -maintains that three aspects. of individual..personalitk relate to one's -competence- and effectiVenestifil. First, the person must accept :hlinse-If--- .4 , .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, . e willingly and accepts suggestions that 'can-. . . improve a part i 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 .. - It compares favorably with the- view :of hers; this gives. him more self-confidence in his own pep. ions.Finally, , the portion. needs =the .free'dom to 'be ableto``-essOr hi*in

-i capabilities and concerns for improving the sis 00 that . .

1.!,:., -21- : p

17'. he feels essential to its effectiveness.- . The feelings of etsentiality,,, confirsiatiOn and- selffitacceptance are precondition's' to effective in organizations:'These 'ate' all part of a person's total seli-esteem.

_Onthe other ,hand,. . individuals. with.law self- esteem in one or niore-of the ".self" areat, can generite many orianizational.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 a person, under stress, withdraws and :denies to .the-..r others. access to orM zot1731cis (inciucting hwn-:1 he holds back as well the benefit of his best-perfoilitnCe . . . ,-..-...... which, under normal -conditrequire,would-. reqUi taking- riskim

.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 . ,t . o as _to yield predictive.,_ outcOme.'il2.memberiof the- organization perform, their interactions4 with others-who. . . . are Often. called the. "role-det."The role-set is composed'-

ofP--- those persons who are interdependent,with ajartiOular . , VI person In ,the organization,And'theactiviiiewalst define .

-;" . ,

, his role aremaintained*throUghthe expectations of members 4

....._ .,. . . , . p of the role -set, Sometimes, however, the person, does mit. -g.:, ' . - . . d ....,-11 choose:to conform to.these "eitpeotations'and.conflict rallies. 47

2 The strong est illdividual Stress Aspects-in role ,': e-p12.

conflict are the expectations'gagsthat ,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. ... -

However, there is an4Mpottant distinction between

role conflict and indiyidual stress per se. ,In the

former, the emphasis is placed on Understanding the= e .dIsputed'thai occur -when-there is_ interaction between

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.

O flictand later to act it out on the tole s0.. Role

Conflict' is interpersonal and intragroup in nature;

individual stress is intrapersonal but eventually leading P t6the_interpersonal /exiel-bf analysis. As I(atz and . A r ehn-state about the nature.of role theory: 4...... , . . It is the' reeeived role which is the immediate source of influence and motivation of his (insofar as it is, influenced by Members 0. of his role set). Finally, the. Local person acts; showing some coMbinitiOn 4tompliance 0 4 and non -cops liance with the expectations of his role-set. ti

- There are a- number of reasons. Ayi 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 7

It .

. choose between what his/her professor in college-taught V 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 expectationtofthe different -roles

takerswith whoM.he interacts, foran expectation of one ".N 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'. . Itmay beimpossible to satisfy them all. Five: peroonal reluctance.on the part of-the

O individual.who'simpay. does not want to .comply with the

expectations of.members of his role -set. The expectations t may be. ,perceived: i,by the individual as against 'his personal

. va not personally interesting to him, in violation' t Iesj.-torofessional orientationto the work, dr different N . . - 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 . .

:i...; ...Langaillatisneeded.lies in the choice' he makesaboUt how,

: ! . J % -. - . - .. -4 4

21.

to oppose the others in the group, and not on his personal

tensions which may lead sometimes unintentionally, to

interpersonal disputes.

.4 POteR STRUGGLES. f.'rt Power struggles seem to be-anatutal part of

organizational life'.Robett Ardrey claims that man has

a real need for territory or apiece of the action he can ...L. call, hisown." '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 toa dvance bne'sseif.- _The ocializedpower :%f4 ' teed is normal 'Among lig (lets and might be beneficial to

the'orgvization. ,t''21course" personalized poOter need

can also,-be d5structive.Michael C rOzier_states that

, power' plays of one kind or another were"at them heart of R all the conaicte hehasstudied." And the' conclusive. 4 thesis of Anthony Jay's "Management and Machiavelli" is

thatbureaucratio politics (power playing) are normal and

natural and should therefore be dealt with dispassionately

J. as a reality of organizationallife. 17 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 e 26.

N .t- e

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. 1... *tr.'' - Asecond cause of power struggles'in:Complex.organi t. . z , . zationsarises when parties seek to gain inflUence thrOugh 4 the,informal organization. /fheperson 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: 0

4 0 0

0. 23.

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 influence 0 with formal authdrity. Conflict arises when, for example., Subordinates resist the orders ofthOse in authority or to. 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 0 -

213_ 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 the a 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 be 0 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 . - 25.

(e4g.,American Indians, through tribal traditions

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 WithholdpiOiliationfrom 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 distrutt These are difficult, if not impossible,- to overctite. at a later 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 ofstructure and behavior are sore appropriate .- than'others; that organizations Conforming_ More closely with these patterns are. more effective.,,_18This concept, subject of afgrowing body of literature, is called "Contingency -Theory:"It is a "contingent" theory beCause thetheme,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 to function dynamical-ly .Within the new, . environmental atmosphere.. 4 31 .

,.. 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 responsetoenvironmental Change ',support this

conclusion.29For example/ Burns and--Stalker haveshown"' that in order to ;survive, organizations thrust intodynamic 0i and uncertain environments require 'different patterns- of

structure and conflict resolution thandoorganizations...... , 3 . comfortably entconsed in, stable and unchanging environ- ..-::--- ments.21 Workby Emerf and Tist, Dill, $tarbucjc, and

Terreberry also support these,findings:iind suggest -that

as environments evolve in terms of diversity., turbulence, Ci -,. O -rates of change, or uncertainty, Organizational patterns 1) 22 of behaVior must evolve with the*.

One of the most recent and elaborate ContingenCy Theories .- , 9 has been advanced by'Lawrence and*Lorsch. Their approach 231 his already received -much- attention in business circles. ,

Building -on several other studies concerning: organizationil- , environmental "fit," Lawrence and- Lorsch. vieWed organizations

as- -open Systems capableofInternal differentiation.- Within-

. this premise, they developed a contingency model for studying'

the relationship between environment and internally. differen-

tiated complexorganizations." Obsetving that organizational

environments-often,offer:awide divergity ofissues, 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' 29i

if organizations were to be effectiVe.In the more diverse

and uncertain industry-environments, subunits had to be

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 thenapeissues they presented=tothe- 4 26 organization;

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 effectivefirms.27They alto-found that these firms had simultaneously achieved higher'states of integration bgtween subunits. In the more diverse environments, 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 differentiation among subunits-, the.greater the need for eiabOrate I Ni

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 6 conclusions." 1 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 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 ratioto the intensity.and frequency .of their

disagreements. Thus, whenever conflict arises., it is made -'

more intense orless Intense bythe relative climAte dif.the

interdependencebetween the individuate.

A residualeffect of high interdepends ce seems .to be 31 the corresponding drive for autonomy. 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 Mg.

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 a

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 -NT N- !

33:. I

32 . - a objectives. . Thus, an enterpribe does not exist insa

vacuum; rather, it is a part of its own externalenviro n-

ment and Must meet those external demandS in'order to .1 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,conceptr 4 SS

That a system is open, means, notsimply,tjat itengages in interchanges,with the environment, butthat this interchange is in essential factor underlying the system's viability, its reprodusSive ability- or continuity., and its 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.

. 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 moreterritorywOri it has POstd. The clients oconsumersof organizations-gometimes O

, bring direct force to bear onthe servingorganisation.

However, some envronmental groups are part of the system's

a 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 :systemare first protected- and /. or°

39 .35. *

served, distorting and possibly destroying the intent of

, the suggestion and the effectiveness of implementation. r 15, 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 besabotagingAprogramsiesupported. However,recent`decades in Mericin history have . demonstrated the powerful impatqf protest groupson '(141k organizations.'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 h ,zt :04 40 I 1 4 1 o ...44.4 36.- -o t .

'crank" letters and phone. calls, to forged .cemunidations 04 0 - . ft.containing information that is 'false, malicious and

. embarrassing; storesc service is disrupted when. ah a, orate 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' protestors i. .1 . .. and take a position against -the organization... This. ie . . . . ./ not tO say that 'all protest "graTt Pe that resort to such I 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 0

-.technique is ,a la st resort.-On'the other hand;. there --- - are protest grolipsgroups whose purpoie is not to better conditions- . or improve the .byttem-within socially acceptable COordinater. - .° Their oblective,is to destroy the organization and the system itself because the systewill not accept them on . * t equal.termis-and! to this end, no action notadtid.ii.. . a ..." . , . iOoextre* .1 ......

A The author has- extensively researChed,the evolution

4, of protest, groups and their target. organizat=ions, over 4 , , a period of years, tracing the progression of thp strategies

employed to influence the organizationom.legitiMata7and traditional. presentationS/ through channels provided for by-

4. 4;: liDO

.4-

4". .- .. 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 4 "I, 6 - study was concitnedwiththe '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 mediafederal 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 0

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 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-the 4 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 riots 4 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 the 4 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 theorganitions,who refused to collaborate

, with the unknowledgeablefflaymen on the, simple principle, that

.4 they were non-profedsional and not competent to judge not

deal with the matter over which they were prOtesting. The 4 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 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 groups 4 to bring external presture to bear,on the internalorgani-

zationv is the activity ofscrutiny" 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 e to defend against the latter.

-Scrutiny groups seek after scarce, information that

might indict ap organization*and demonstrate that it is not 4 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 41-.

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, they manage by crisis. Many enterprises,seek to influence . their environments as well (e.g., thrgh advertising) to make the process even more ratlonal. cause the impact A of the external environment is felt within the organization, an objective is to be adaptive andinnovative 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 custodialorientation.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 andmanagers.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 39 simply because of misperceptions and uncommon information.

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 40 line versus staff misunderstandings, 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. 3.,. ".1.'1 0% 44

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION

Based on a valid diagnosis of the situation,

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 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

anyone of these methods deponddon theindividual and

the organizational state.

-C011aboration: This theorymaintains that people

should surface their dikferenc4s (get them out in the Open),

and then work on the problems until they .have attained 4,0 . mutually. .satisfactory solutions-. This approach assumes

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 to

1. 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 .1 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 45.

in trading are underhanded and 'create bad feelings.. In 3 the end, when an agreement is reached, it is usually

enforced by a written contract-with sanctions in caseof

non-compliance. In the event no agreement-is reacheda

. 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

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 the t. 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 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)-.

Generally, agg'a%s 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

e subvert.. the organization.

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

. . q taken with unhappy individuals through counielingoaching,

and thirdparty consultation.

InstanCes-of external pressures are also more prone

51 to being fought using power or they can be resolved through

birgaining. Independent entities in conflict haveno 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:

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 theparties to begin a'

co-equal relationship when it is achieved. To assume a. 4 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 for 0 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 et balance of power to a conditioh of more power parity. , This made it possible to increase the collaboration- effOrte 40 between the parties. Once: power parity and interdependence'..

have been establ ished, open-systetsplanning schemes provide 41 technology for organization-environmental Collaboration.

0 52. s. s 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 esfor effective' communication, by conflict management, decisionMakIng,

goal-setting and-by planning, establishing', and Ohafiling the norms and values. A:thirdpartiedbnpultant can. often 6 4 help role group members by more objectively clarifying the disputes., He -can do this-by structuring the time) place and groundrdle'S forthe 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 .ofinflueniials: .Hecan develop a : A "favor" system whereby others ogre- him debts of'gretitlAde and recognize. he will'bethe 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 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

0 conflict. management more compelling and more apt to be.,

engaged in by the workers. By thesametoken, 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 1 0'

- 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. A Differentiation is a common manifestation lending..

itself to collaborative conflict management. There are various A , waystOtesolve 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 and 0 communication sotgat differences are clarified and under'

0 2 ,stood; by engaging in a problem- solving- process maximizing

54; 0 '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.

C: - FIGURE us CONFLICT MANAGEMENT cmcpE r

boundary of the orbit arethoie:problems

C 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

4 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 - I. 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 . . , 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 52.

is the Most effeciiive way to manage conflicts. it is

true that collaborative methods lend themselves to some OW

...... 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. , . a Table-III belowillustratesthevarioustechnologies ,applicable -.toto eadh major cause of conflict given the

three different approaches.'

.. I 9

I . .

.... 8

I ; . TABLE III

CONFLI CT MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

_ .

r 4- CM TECHNOLOGIES . * Causes of Conflict Collaboration- ,Bargaining Rider -'

. .

. . .

External pressures open systems plan- . negotiation force and threats . ring Flof-fortei.use of

. laws co-optation, s . . strategic use .of

. information, co-.

. :alitimbuilding

. ' . 1 . . .

Inditrichal stress touhseling) contracting ' 'fire, .

. coaching, transfer,

problem - solving- . -. careful job ,

VA . description

. , ' -

Power struggles build organiza- negotiation, use of legitimate' tonal climate, solve substan- authority, make decisions tive issues of cooptation, closeto infot- scarce resource, coalition build-

. mation source, allocation, es- ing, favor system best ideas pre -- tablish- power .

vail, encourage parity -

participation, . , . probleh-solving . . ,_

- .

Low interdependence increasing group negotiation to 4.5e. of legitimate interaction. inter- authority, to , . action structure more interaction , .

Role disputes, team building, . support with formal 4- differentiation, ;Communication . authority and high interdependence skills, problem rewards

. solving, con-

- frontive style, imaging, third- . party consul- .

- ration,- climate

58 Gs 11 Appendix III -whiCh,.follows is an:aitemptto describe" - briefli thevariousterMs- andtechnOlogieS inTable In general, ithen the causes.ofconflictore.role- disputes,

_ differentiation, high interdependence - or saw forms of

power struggles, a collaborative- strategy"seemsto be

most, effective.

We can conclude bystating, asiziple growid rule- Which the Conflict Manager can use toguicie.iis.interVentionS.:

-assess the situation arid- then..aCtappropriately. As. Michel Crozier has stated in a. Critique of thestrictly rational - And the strictly human relations approachtodispute.

settlement:

A human being, however, does not have on).$ a' hand. and a- heart. He- also hai 'head, which means-Ie.is.free_ to .pity44 owngene... -Subordinates ens be ceeaide*44 asIsee agentsmho can discuss. -theft ean'probleavand beige* about then, 'who do. not only enhmit to a power structure but :also particigate in that .structure.-

.kanaging organizational -conflicts .situationallY

-allows'forthe integration of the 'heart, the -handand the head in one of the 'lost. important'asPeCti of: organizational life.

59 55.

C N APPENDIX I

NAMES OF JOURNALS CORRESPONDING. TO 'LETTER ABBREVIATIONS

10,

* 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

t "q

-60

-r 56.

APPEND/Xi /I

ARTICLES APPEARING IN JOURNALS-LISTED-IN TABLE -I

The Harvard Business Review (HBRiq

I. Directly-Related Articles

F.J. Roethlisberger; *The Administrator's Skill: Communication," Nov./Dec., 1953, 31, #6.

Wendell Johnson; "The Fateful Process of Ni. Talking to Mr. 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 of Differences,* 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 of Double Talk,*"Sept./Oct., 1965, 3, #5.

/sodOre Silver, "The Corporate Omb4daman," May/June; 1967, 45, #3. , . 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. A

Alonzo McDonald,-*Conflict At The Summit: A'Deadly Game," Mar./Apr., 1972,.50, #2.

Larry E. Greiner, "Evolution and Revolution As Organizations

Grow," 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," e. Noy./Dect, 1973, 51, #6.

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 Gateways to Communication," July/Aug., 1952, 30, #4.

ti Leonard Sales and George Strauss, "Conflicts Within the Local Uniont",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,"Human Relations in a Hank," Sept-./Oct., 1954, 32, #5.

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 Organizational Life," 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 Are Still Mbre EqUal," Sept./Oct., 1973, 51, #5. M. Barbara Boyle, "Equal Opportunity For Women Is Smart Business," 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.a 4 1964, 9, #39. Louis R. Pondy, "A Systems Theory of Organizational Conflict," Ibid.

Henry. 0. Pruden, "Interorganizational Conflict,. Minkagte, and Exchange: 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.

A Stuay, Of Agthur E. Butler, Jr:, "Project Management: _-- 11.111 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 . _,----,------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. 1 - 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, "Professional Norls 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 in Organizational 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.

' a ca Z.

61 .

^: 7.1,. . .60.

Thomas A. Petit, "Managememt_.Ideology: Myth andReality4.° 1960, 3, #2, 95-102.

4 WilliamM. Fox, When Human Relations May 'Succeed and- the Company rail," 1965, '8,-r.43, 19-24. -or

Paul Prasow and Edward Peters, -"The Development of Judicial is Arbitration 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.

Kenneth-Gc-Goode, 'Can- the ilroAmeridanBe An'Effectiie Executivelt 1970, 11, 41,-22=26.

Lyman K. -Randall, "CoMm6n Questions and-Tentative-Answere Regarding 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. Blacks into the Organization-; °- Fall, 19724 15, #1.

David Moment and Delmar-Fisher/ "Managerial Career Development and the Geherational Confrontation4" Spring, 1973,,A5, 3-

Jay Hall, "Communicatioll Revisited," Spring, 1973, 151434

Gary -R. Gekmill and W.J. Heisler4,"Madhiavellianism As Factor in- Managerial Job Strain, JOb.Satisfaction And. Upward Mobility," 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) . Teachers College Record (TCR*)

II.. Tangentially-Related. Articles , O 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 Stressin'Administrative Rel.ation- ships," March; 1962, 10, #7.

1 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 Urban

School System,"^May, 1071;.19, #9. ,

. J . \ .. \ II, .Tangentially-Related pArticles, ,-; . ... 317ohn' 11:14.*Andrews, "A Deterrent to HarMony Among_ TeaChers, ,41arch b 47. q . I1958, I . . ,... ' 141lia4 W. Savage, "The Administrator and Criticism of EdUcation," Oct'., 1954, 3, 42.

Wesley A. Wildman, "Collective Action by Public School r Teacheri," Feb., 1963, 11, #6.

66 62.

Bernard= C. Watson; "The Principal: Forgotten Man in Negotiations,* Oct., 1966, 15, #2. . Mark Hanson, "The Emerging Control Structure of Sohodise" .- March le 1973, Vol. XXI, #2.,

Rainey Mgth, "Teachei Percepticalt of Power, Conflict and Consensgs," April 24, 19734 Vol,.XXI,.#4. ' e ' . of e%

Rossell W. Meyers,. "Bureaucratic Theory, and tchOols,":Jan- 7 . , 14, 1972, Vol. XX, 5. .: . e'r . - ''-te ., I. . i .

. . 4_... Educational Administration and Supervision-lAtS*1 0 . _

.1:6- II. Tangentially-Related Articles

. Joseph Resnic#, "The Administrator.and Teacher Adjustment," Ian., 19571 43, #1.

G '-4 Educational 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 '4 SchoolPrincipal's-oftheGross-Study Of 'Rae -Conflict . Resolution, " Spring' 197r, 6, #2, 36-45% " 00 O A. 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._ - o .',: d . " . o' George Madden, "A TheoFetical Basis for Differentiating Forms of Collective Bargaining in Education," Spring, 1969, 5, #2,

76-90. . . r. 0 Public'Admiristration Review (PAR *)

, Directly-Related Articles Alan Itosenthal,.*Admini.strator-Teacher Relations: .garmoiXi or Conflict?* June, 1967, .21, #2.

Brooklyn Derr, "Conflict Resolution in Organizations: -Views fiom the Field of Educational Administration," Sept./Oct._, ,1972,.32,

.. . .

II. Tangentially-Related Articles ..2

. Jeptha A. Carrell, "The CityManager and His COuhci1: "SoUrOelg. of Conflict,* Dec., 1962, 22, #4. s.44- ; . .

.. . Donald C. Rowat, "Ombudsman foi NOrth,America,*.Dec:_, 104,"

14, #4. . -

. Arnold J. Auerbach, "Confrontation and Administrative ReSponsi,";i 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. 0.0 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 Organizational Conflict," 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 ReseirCh Organizations," June, 1965, 10,. # , . 4. Richard E. Walton and JOhn M. Dutton, "The Management .of Interdepartmental 'tonflict," March, 1969,,14, #1, 78-83.

68 me.

.. . Clagett_G,i4d.th.,. "Atompirative Analysis of Some Condit -ions

0 . and COnseg, nces of Intra-Organizational Conflict,"March,

,1966, 10,1U,304-520. .

Louis R. Pondy, "Varieties-of Organizational Conflict, 1969, 14, 114.

Monald" G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," -Dec.,. 1969, 14, #4. '

,Richard- X. Aalton,.JohnK. Dutton and lhopas P. toffertyi "Organizational, Contextand Interdepartmental COnflict," Dec., 1969, 14, 4. # .John R. RiZIO;, Robert 4..house, Sidney I. Lintzman, "Role Conflict And Ambiguktyjn Complex Orgainizations,"June, 1970, 15,12,-150-163.

t'George B. Darkoriwald, Jr., "Organititionai Conflict inC011eges aftd-Universities," Dec., 1974 le,"" #4, 407-412.

Atobeit lwBonn, "Arbitration: An Alteriative System for Handling.Contract Relafed'Disputes," 17, #2, June1972, C -4 254-264: ers

.ca . o StuartM..SChkidt and Thomas A. tochan, "Conflict: Toward-

Cbnceptual Clarity," 17, #3, Sept.._ 1972, 359370. _

. . John Child, "Strategies` of Control l-and OiganIttional Behavior,"

,18, Mar.,1973, 1-17. 4.- Af, ,Tangentially-Related Articles 7*414. 6 .4T*1!.;6 9 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 'Tv Delbert id. .Miller and Fremont,A. Skull, Irk, ,"The Prediaticin of Administrative Role Conflict Resolutions," Sept.; 1962, 7, # e

143-1602. .

George-Strauss, "Tactics of Lateral Relationships: The Purchasing, Agent," 7, #2, 1903.

David Mechanic, "Sources of POwer of Lower Participants in

Complex 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. I

° 69 fi r 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 interorganizatiOnal Conflict," Dec., 1969, 14, #4."

H. George Frederickson, "Role Occupancy. and Attitudes Toward Labor .Relations in.Government," Dec, 196.9, 14, #4. o Doug10 T. Hall and Roger Mansfield, "Organizational and Individual Response 'to External Stress," Dec., 1971, 14, #4, 533-547. ;

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS*) .

I. Directly-Related Articles A Robert R. Blake, sane S. Mouton and. Richard L. Sloma, "The Union - 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,BOrder Conflicts In Eastern Africa," Oct./Nov./Dec., 1970, 6, #4, - 453-489. .

Roy .J. Lewicki and Clayton P. Alderfer, "TheTension Between Research and /ntervention in Intergroup Conflict," plus comments on this article',. July/Aug., 1973 9, #4.'

LeOnard D. Goodstein-and Ronald K. Boyer, "Crisisintervention_. a Municipal Agency." 43, May/June., 1972; 318-340.

Samuel A. Culbert, '"Using Researdh to Guide an Organization 0 DeVelopment," 8, #2, Mar./Apr., 1972, 203-236. ,70. 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 as a 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 * Work Relationships: 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 (Teachei ., Corps)," July/Aug.!,1972, 8,. #4, 451z-480'1

Nei df Journal Of Conflict Resolution (JCR*)

I. Directly-Related-Articles

Ann. Douglas, "The Peaceful Settlement of Industrial and Intergroup 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 of Conflict and-of Conflict Resolution," March, 1963,-7-,, 1, 26.42.° Ralph M. Gol4pan, NA Theory0Conflict Processes and Organi- zational Offices," -Sept., 1966, 10, #3, 3284-343.-

William M. Evan and John A. MacDougall, Interbrganizational COnflictt A Labor-Management Bargaining Experiment," Dec., 1964 11, #4, 398-411

Oran X. Young, "Intermediaries: Additional.Thoughte oWThird Vartits,"-16-#1, March,1972,:51-65-

Ronald J. Piaher, *Third Party Consultation; A Method,fer the Study and ReZolution of Conflict," 16, #1, March, 1972, 6T-96. -67.

/. Tangentially-Related Articles

Judson_ S. Brown, "Principles of Intrapersonal Conflict," June, 1957, 135-154.

George Levinger, Kurt Lewin's Approach to Conflict and /ts Resolution: 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 intergroup Hostility: Research Problems and Hypotheses," March, 1959; 3, #1, 85.

Daniel-Katz, "Consistent Reactive Participation of Group Membets and Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," March, 1959, 3,, lip 2840.

Robert R: Blake and Jane S. Mouton, "Comprehension of in and Outgroup 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, "The Integrative Functions of Conflict," Dec., 1960, 4, #3, 355T-374.

Motton Deutsch and Robert M. Krauss, "Studies of Interpersonal

Bargaining," 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 Role Reversal 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.. 1913Vol. XVII,

Kathleen Whmeister-and Daniel Druckman, "Determinants of Resolving a-Conflict of Interest," March, 1973, Vol. XV.YI, #1. 72.: 68.

John Cheney_, Thomas Hartford, Leonard Stilomon, *The. Effects of Communicating Threats and- Promises Upon the Bargaining . Process,* March, l972, Vol. 'XVI, -87, 91-107.

V' a

73 0 4 69. APPENDIX III

GLOSSARY OF-UNCOMMON TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS

-Coaching: Helping a person by encouraging, advising; instructing, and otherwise aiding in the accomplishment of a goal.

risA Castunication ski.114: Learning how to listen, understand issues, explore verbal and non-verbal messages so that the conflict can be worked productively.

Confrontation style: Teaching people to value a style which openly surfaces- disagreements and then, .based on the data, attempt to confront the issues and solve the problems.

Contracting: Setting psychological expectations and making agreements by explicitly dit- cussing agendas, wants, needs, quid, pro quos 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 organization may 'have to 'allow itself to be influenced by the opposition in .order to attract t. r them to join it. ,

.Cbunaeling: Engaging in atherapeuticrelationship with a person to help him resolve (for himSelf),,his own internal tensions.

Imaging: A 'procedure designed to uncoverthe-common

perceptions and -misperceptions of partiff in conflict so that theproblems(isSuesi are clearer; validated. and can .be usedas O levers. for -managing- the, dispute.

74 70.

Negotiation: A procedure, varying in its degree of formalityt, for deciding suhttantive issues in a conflict and mechanisms to ensure resoldtion.It implies giVezand--take -compromise.

Open systems planning: Various methods for including .parts of the external environment in the internal dedisioit making of the organization (e.g. the charette),. V

Ctrganizational The norms, beliefs, values and rewarded= behaviors which constitute informal laws in the enterprise.-If the climate supports taking'risks, example, risk-oriented, workers will notnot hesitate to Stake them. r Power parity: Trying to gain advantages through, confrontation; the amassing of ,resources; demonstrating strength.; .a feeling of being treated as a peer or equal' on given' issues as well as in the general climate.,

Prcblem solving: Openly sharing information (including conflicts and anger). and. expanding energy to try to arrive at a common and creative solution to a problem benefiting both parties. A more Or. lest Sophisticated procedure can be used to arrive at a solution.

%am building': Building skint, aitodUctive climate,. good4hterpersonal relations, and conceptual e Understanding within the work group so that it can use conflict producing, energy to accomplish their tasks creatively.

Third-partycansultaiion: The use of someone both skilled (knowledgeable) and outside the immediate dispiteto listen to the qbkflict and :intervene in order to help the parties manage their problems more productively.

9 71.

FOOTNOTES

1 Kenneth 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, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts- and Models, "-Administrative Sciericejluarterly, 12, 'September, 1967,-296-320.

a Richard A. Schmuck et. al., Handbook of-Okganizatidn-Develop- ment In Schools (Palo Alto:National-Press, 1972),; Toe Kelley, "We Conflict Work for You," Harvard Business Review; 402, Jdly/August 1970, 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, "BeyondTheory

17Harirata 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.Organizational Contingency Theory. for Education," .Educational-Administration Quarterly, 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, Spring 1973, 91404'.

weV Chris Aygyris, Understanding Organizational Behavior (Homewood, 0 Illinois: Erwin- Dorsey Press, 1960).

7 Harry Levinson, Mario-Management and Mental Health (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1-067).

8See Kenneth E. Boulding, "Organization' and Conflict," Journal of 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. 9 SeeAbraham Zaleznick, "The Dynaniics of Subordinancy," Harvard Business. Review, May/June, 1965, 43, 119-131; and Victor A: Thompson, ''Hierarchy, Specialization. and Organizational 'Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly; -March, 1961, 485521.

1°SeeJames D. licupson, "Organizational Manageinent of Conflict,P Administrative Science Quarterly, Arch, 1960, 4, 389-409; Leonard

Berkowitz, '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 -Chris Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading, Addison- Wesley, 1970), 38-43;

12 See Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social nychology of, Organizations (New VOrk:John Wiley, 1966), p. 174.

13 Ibid. p. 198.

14RobbrtArdrey, Territorial Imperative (New York: .Dell Publishing Company, 1966).

1 5DavidC. McClelland, "The Two Faces -of Journal of International Affairs, XKIV, 1, 1970.

16mi.- che.1 Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: UniVersity of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 145.

17 Antony Jay, Maria iat and..Machiavelli: An -Inquiiv-_into the Polities of Corporate Life York:Holt; Rinehart. a.ffinston, 1967).

18 See particularly'TomBurnsand.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," American Sociological 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.cit p. 186-.210.

e 20 See F.E. Emery and -E.L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of Organi- zational Environment,"HumanRelations, 18,'1 (February, 1965), 21-32;

77 73. and Wiliam Dill, "The Impact. of Erivironment on -Organizational Development" in Sydney Marlick and E:1-1. Van New Conceits and Issues in Administrative Behavior, (Englewood Cliffs: -Prentice Hall, 1962) ; Thompson-,. p. cit.

21See Sums and- Stalker,, a.. cit.., p.e 96;-pp. 119 -120, 139440, 232-234. -

.22geeEmery and Trist,. p. -cit.; William Dill, "Erivircannent

as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy," Achinnistrative. Science._ rterl 2, 1958, 399-443;, ThOMpsce, cit.:, pp. 72,73; Shirley errerry, 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.,), Handbook of Organizations (Chidago:Rand.McNally;- .1965).; pp- 467-468-

23See Lawrence and Lorsch, cit., "Differentiation and Integration in 'Coriiplex Organizations,'" rninistrative Science. uarterly,. 12, , June 1967, pp. 1 -47-; .Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action (ReadingMass.:Addison- Wesley, -1969); borsch andlawrence, ed., Studies in OrganizationalDesign (Homewood,Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 197p;*and JayW-.* Lorsch,' Product Innovation and Organization (New York:McMillan, 1965).

24SteLawrence and Lorsch, ibid.Several others have -also pointed out that differentiation by organizations_ facing. cosidex -environments is a precondition to survival- and effettiveness. .Working from both an open system model and a P4rsonian ft-asp of refetence, Katz and Khan have theorized that in order to survive, an 'organitation differentiates, itself into 'several subsyttems, .'Kat.z ,andlchan, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York:John Wiley,,and 1966J, pp. 45-5-456.Rice and Miller and their associates at the. Tavistock Institute haVe theorized that organizations differentiate themselves to perforit the "primary task," the tesk-whia the organization mustdo .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 it increases the potential conflitt -between, subunits.Walton and Dutton have made this point in a review :of the literature on interdepartmental... conflict.Richard Walton and John Dutton, "Management of InterclepartMental Conflict: 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_ necessary consequence of thecognitive,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 -and Lorsch have defined it, ia4more extentive,elaXioration.-of the same concept because it also includes- the c.onsequeric,es .of-differeinces in . -work styles and other orientations, idtich. are source_ a of difficulty in interunit relaiionships-. A detailed explanation of their methodology canbe -found in Lawren0e- and Wreck Cit., 0: :247,08..4 - 26see.,La- .and Limsdi, ibid., p..91. .,..11 27Ibid..,-pp. 151-156. cp,

28James D. Thompson,m. cit.

- . .. 29.Todd R. LaPorte,. "Conditions of _Strain and Accoapodation in Induttrial Research Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, .June, 1965, 10, 21-38. 4, 38Harrison White, "Management of Conflict and- Sociometric Structure," The American Journal of Sociology-, 07,,165.7199:

31Antony,Jay,- cit. Herbert. A.. Shepart, "Innovation- Resisting. andInnovation-PicitisOrganizations," 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, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1969).. p. 147ran 'Michel Crozier, 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' Boston School Department," an unpublished Ed.P. Thesis, the Harvard,Graduate School of Education,1971.

35Richard-E. Walton; "Inietorganizational Decisioh Making and Identity :Conflict,"Special Technical Report 02 (The Harvard Business School, Division' of Research; 'March,- 1969) ; Howard,-Aldrich", "OrganizatiCoal -Boundaries and 1#erorganiiationai .Conflict," .Human Relations, 24, 4,August,971; EigendLitwak and -LydiaF. "Byltoi ITTITorganitational Analysis; kifypothesis on Coordinating Agencies," Administrative Science Quarterly-, 6; .March, 1962..

36NWyerN. Zald, "Power Balance and"Staff C6nflicts in Correctional Institutions;"."-Aftinistrative Science Quarterly, June, 1962, 7, pp. 22 -49. r-

---7,9. -t

. 75/

37 Joe Kelley., "Make Conflict Work for You," Harvard Business Review, Jubrs/AugUst, 1970, pp. 103 -113.

38 See Louis R. Pondy, "Varieties of.Organizational Conflict,"

Administrative Science Quarterly,. eCember, 1969, 14, 4.

39 Warren H.,Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum, 94anagement of Differences,"- Harvard. Business Review, November/December, 1960, pp. 107-115.

400n line'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.

41 C."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"For Developmental 021ganizationA UCIA, .September, 197Z. °

43 Sed Crozier, St. it., pp. 149-150-

Af 00

.80 Initial Distribution- List

.....--.

Ma. e

DefenseDocumentationCenter Cameron Station . -Alexandria, Virginia ma. Bert Kiiig, Robert Guthrie,JohnNega$ Office of Naval Research OrganizationalEffectiveness Program ONR 452 Ballston Center ibwer #1 800 N. Quincy Street Arlington, VA 22304 N

Naval Personnel Research and Development Center Ed. Sficmas r San Die, Cal.92152

i Naval Personnel Research. arid Develop Center Management of People and,Organizations .San Diego, Cal.92152 .. 'DeputYChief of NavalOperations for Manpower.(OP41) _Arlington Annex Washington, D. C. 20370 411 .. buieauof Naval .Personnel (Pers 62 andPers 65). Arlington Annex . Wathihgton,,D. C.20370 411

Library 1 Naval Rostgraduate School. s Monterey,'CA93940

. ... Capt. Peter Flyrin --DeputyDirector PM Bureau of Medecine and Surgery Washington, P. C.

- . ArnW Research Institute

Conmohwealth Bldg. . 1300. WilsonBlvd. Rosalyn, VA 22209 *. . . Military Assistant For Human Resources OAD CE & 1,3).ODDR. & E pehtagpn 3D1,29 Washington; D. C.20301'

. a ti v

4 ...,,.. -76 Hiznan Performance Division 1 s Code-'44- -Navy Medical R&D Command Bethesda, Maryland 20014

Officeof Deputy Chief of Staff For Personnel f.. ., -,1 Research Office DARE PBR . Washington.,.D. C. 20310

Air University Library LSE 9110 o . . Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 , 0 o

Office -of Civilian Manpower Managiieht 1 Perpsorinel Management -Evaluation Wench_ (72) Washington, D. C.20390 s' Training Officer 0 Human Resource Management Center RIC San Diego, Cal. 92133

airector, ETRPD 3. Cpde N.33 CNET Naval Air StatiOn Pensacola, Fla. 32508

Conmander 0 Organization Development 0 Pt. Ord, Cal. 93940

Z. A. Haute), 4 NaVal. Personnel and Training-Research Center , Code 30/ Diego, Cal. 95152 Sate 4 Commander HRMC 4 0 5621Tidewater Dr. -'-o 'North*, Va 23509

Ccurnander }MC Bid. 304

naval Training Center _ San Diego, Cal. '923a104 f # s.,If 4.4.01 1 t Caansndei. ire ;"..'t ,10 ',A I)! o Pearl Harbor Naval Station -FPO San ftstecisco, Cal. 96601 0 p c.

04 i f% . 0 e . . i 82 . . 477 a Cdimander -HNC 13iiirean of Naval. Researc h Washington, D C.20370 DIrectOr !ItimanItesciurcea Research 713Architect Bldg: 11100WilsonB1id._ ArlingtOn, Va. .22209 Chemin .BehaVioria Science-Dept. Na.Val Caimandand Mgt.Dilision. .O. S. Naval Academy

. Lute Hall 211102- .

Rudy Winston ' Organizational peha'vidr Navy -War.College ,ProVidence, Rhilde :Island 02E140

Ctianander 4113WID Alamecla*_Naval'Air Station -AlaMeda, 911501 Professorlilchael Dean Cod '55. Naval,PostgraduateSchool Mont y_, "Cal.939110

Professor Carson &gang . *

_ Ccde 55 Naval. PostgrakiteSchool . . 'Montex4ey, gal, 939110- t 'Professor' ;David A. atitrady ... . WO .55 " . . -NavalPostgraduateSon:ial , Monterey,Cal:-:-.939110.7. .* I - ProfessorflphArdEaster

Code. -55 , . _ Nava] Postgraduate School lenntereY2Cal, 939110

Professor Douglas Courtney

Cade, 55 . . . . . ,Naval Pottgraduki .Sehool. Monterey, Cal.. 939110 4

OftV.S..A.lier14 .* . Code-55 .I .: &Iva Post date School lb* eras Cal.9010

. 78 C

7- Professor- Williath Hap, -. 4 Code 55 P Naval Postgeaduate School Monterey, Cal. 939110

.. Professor Tam.Wyatt 'Code 55 . NavalPostgraduate School Monterey, Cal 939110

Professor Gerald-Musgrave .i. Cede 55 Naval Postgradiate Sdhcol .0. MOnterey, Cal; 939110 a atRichard McGonigal 1

Cdde 5 , I, Nays.], Postgraduate School Monterey, Cal.09110

Proft..or John Senger - Code 55 Naval Postgraduate 'School -.Monterey; Cal. 93940 t Professor Ches ter *Ight.' , Code- 55 - , .. Naval Postgraduate School_ ' . .,, r

ForHuAan 'Goals CCUrse 50

- Dean of -Research I , Naval Postgraduate sohdoi. monterey, CA' 93940

: -.. r r ,-

4 : , 4 84 - . , . 79' . .. 6.