Direction des bibliothèques
AVIS
Ce document a été numérisé par la Division de la gestion des documents et des archives de l’Université de Montréal.
L’auteur a autorisé l’Université de Montréal à reproduire et diffuser, en totalité ou en partie, par quelque moyen que ce soit et sur quelque support que ce soit, et exclusivement à des fins non lucratives d’enseignement et de recherche, des copies de ce mémoire ou de cette thèse.
L’auteur et les coauteurs le cas échéant conservent la propriété du droit d’auteur et des droits moraux qui protègent ce document. Ni la thèse ou le mémoire, ni des extraits substantiels de ce document, ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans l’autorisation de l’auteur.
Afin de se conformer à la Loi canadienne sur la protection des renseignements personnels, quelques formulaires secondaires, coordonnées ou signatures intégrées au texte ont pu être enlevés de ce document. Bien que cela ait pu affecter la pagination, il n’y a aucun contenu manquant.
NOTICE
This document was digitized by the Records Management & Archives Division of Université de Montréal.
The author of this thesis or dissertation has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Université de Montréal to reproduce and publish the document, in part or in whole, and in any format, solely for noncommercial educational and research purposes.
The author and co-authors if applicable retain copyright ownership and moral rights in this document. Neither the whole thesis or dissertation, nor substantial extracts from it, may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms, contact information or signatures may have been removed from the document. While this may affect the document page count, it does not represent any loss of content from the document.
Université de Montréal
Conflict Management Behaviors in a Management Meeting:
A Conversation Analytic Study
par
Luiza Bogateanu
Département de communication
Faculté des arts et des sciences
Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures
en vue de l'obtention du grade de
Maître es sciences (M.Sc.)
en sciences de la communication
Août, 2008
© Bogateanu Luiza, 2008 11
Université de Montréal
Faculté des études supérieures
Ce mémoire intitulé:
Conflict Management Behaviors in a Management Meeting:
A Conversation Analytic Study
Présenté par:
Bogateanu Luiza
a été évalué par un jury composé des personnes suivantes:
Dr. Loma Heaton
Président-rapporteur
Dr. Boris Brurnmans
Directeur de recherche
Dr. François Cooren
Membre du jury III
Résumé
Dans ce projet, j'ai examiné des interactions organisationnelles afm de comprendre comment les membres d'une organisation gèrent les situations conflictuelles quotidiennes. De manière plus précise, j'ai analysé un enregistrement vidéo d'une réunion de directeurs présentée dans le documentaire After Mr. Sam, produit par l'Office
National du Film du Canada. Basée sur le cadre théorique de l'ethnométhodologie (EM) et de l'analyse de la conversation (CA), cette étude analyse les données dans une perspective de dispute et au même temps prend en considération les outils précédents de la communication organisationnelle pour mesurer des conflits. Avec une telle approche l'étude offre une perspective plus communicative et dynamique de l'étude du conflit et contribue à la littérature sur la gestion des conflits organisationnels. En conséquence, l'analyse met en lumière la dynamique du processus de la dispute et les comportements de gestion des conflits que les participants mettent en acte par leurs conversations dans la réunion de directeurs analysée. Les conclusions de cette étude suggèrent que le conflit organisationnel est un processus dynamique, faisant partie des processus d'organisation quotidiennes, et que, plus fréquent les membres des organisations gèrent les conflits de manière moins évidente et informelle.
Mots clés: Ethnométhodologie, Analyse de la conversation, Comportements de gestion des conflits, Processus de la dispute. lV
Abstract
In this thesis, 1 investigated organizational interactions to understand how organizational members deal with daily conflict situations. Specifically, 1 analyzed a video-recorded management meeting presented in the documentary After Mr. Sam, produced by the National Board Film of Canada. Based on a theoretical framework consisting of ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA), this study takes a disputing perspective and considers previous organizational communication conflict instruments to analyze these data. By taking this approach, this study offers a dynamic and more communicative perspective to the study of conflict, thus making a contribution to the literature on organizational conflict management. Accordingly, the analysis illustrates the dynamics of the disputing process and the conflict management behaviors that participants in the analyzed management meeting conversationally enacted. In turn, this study' s fmdings suggest that organizational conflict is a dynamic process, that it is part of daily organizing processes, and that organizational members often deal with conflict phenomena in covert and informal ways.
Key words: Ethnomethodology, Conversation analysis, Conflict management behaviors, Disputing process. v
Table of contents
List of abbreviations vii
Acknowledgments viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: A Review of Literature on Organizational Contlict and Organizational
Contlict Management Behaviors 3
Organizational Contlict 3
Concepts and Definitions 3
Overview ofPrevious Research 4
Traditiona/ Approaches to the Study ofConflict Management Behaviors 6
Conflict Managementfrom a (More) Communicative PointofView 11
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 17
CA and Contlict Management Behaviors 17
Overview of EM 20
EM's Origins and Assumptions 20
Overview of CA 27
CA 's Origins and Assumptions 27
The Re/ationship between CA and EM 30
The Study of Disputing from a Conversation Analytic Point of View 32
Research Questions 33
Chapter 4: Case Description and Research Method 34
Data: The Case of After Mr. Sam 34
Overview ofthe Case 35
The Characters in After Mr. Sam 37 VI
Key Moments in After Mr. Sam 38
Method: Conversation Analysis 42
Transcription Conventions 42
Conc/uding Remarks on the Method Used in this Study 50
Chapter 5: Analysis 52
AfteF MF. Sam: The Dispute over Family Organization 53
Transcript (lines 766 - 1027) 53
Chapter 6: Discussion 96
Research Questions and Implications of this Study 96
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 105
Endnotes 108
References 110
Appendix 1 vu
List of abbreviatioDs
EM - ethnomethodology
CA - conversation analysis Vlll
Acknowledgements
1 would like to express my deepest gratitude to my research advisor, Dr. Boris
Brummans, whose shared wisdom, generous help and contÏnuous support made the writing of this thesis a wonderfullearning experience. This study would not have been possible without his valuable guidance and comments.
1 am also grateful to Dr. Francois Cooren and Dr. Loma Heaton for evaluating the first proposaI of this thesis, for their helpful suggestions, and for accepting to evaluate this thesis.
My sincere appreciation goes also to the Département de communication, an excellent place to study, and to all the teachers who contributed to my education during this Master' s program.
Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to all my family, and especially to my husband
Dan, for providing a positive and supportive environment which has enabled me to complete this study. 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Many studies explore conflict phenomena. They try to find out the fundamental principles that make conflict productive, and what people should do to obtain positive outcomes from conflict situations. Generally, conflict research is based on the premise that healthy and harmonious relationships-and, implicitly, social order-can be accompli shed through acknowledging and productively managing conflicting situations.
Thus, although conflict used to be perceived as a harmful phenomenon, scholars nowadays admit that conflict is inevitable, and try to study the beneficial outcomes of good conflict management. In light of this more optimistic approach to the study of conflict, organizational conflict research shows a growing interest in investigating conflict management behaviors.
Based on these same grounds, the current study aimed to gain more insight into the phenomenon of organizational conflict management by taking an expressly communicative point ofview. In other words, 1 observed a conflict by focusing on how participants involved in resolving this conflict conversationally enacted and managed it.
Specifically, this study presents an analysis of data provided through the documentary
After Mr. Sam, a video-recording of a few management meetings at Steinberg's Ltd, a well-known Canadian company. 1 used micro-analytic tools to describe and analyze one ofthese meetings. Therefore, this study integrates two analytical approaches
(ethnomethodology - referred to as "EM", and conversation analysis - referred to as
"CA"). In so doing, this study allowed me to explore the dynamic features of organizational conflict. 2
As 1 will show in the chapter 2, the existing literature still requires studies that take the perspective 1 have taken in this investigation. But perhaps a more important contribution ofthis study is that it provides a careful analysis of conflict management behaviors to understand organizational interactions, something which conflict researchers seldom do.
To begin, 1 will present a general overview of extant literature on organizational conflict in the next chapter. In this chapter, 1 will also review traditional approaches to the study of conflict management behaviors and discuss more recent communicative studies that aim to improve this existing research. These reviews will set the stage for my study and lead me into my theoretical framework, which 1 will de scribe in chapter 3. ln other words, in chapter 3,1 will present this study's overarching framework, grounded in EM and CA, and highlight its core notions and fundamental theoretical assumptions.
Based on this framework, 1 will formulate specific research questions. In the method chapter thereafter, 1 will de scribe the case 1 studied in more detail and discuss the method employed to analyze it. Further, 1 will present additional information conceming the people studied (the "characters" of the "drama" 1 studied), the relationships between them, the company's history, and its status at the moment of the particular management meeting that was shown in the documentary. Chapter 5 will present the actual analysis of the interactions that occurred during this meeting. To conclude, in chapter 6,1 will present the responses to my research questions, discuss this study's implications and limitations, and provide suggestions for future research. 3
Chapter 2
A Review of Literature on Organizational Confliet and
Organizational Confliet Management Behaviors
ln this chapter, 1 will discuss the ways in which conflict has been defined conceptually and review extant research on this subject. Then, 1 will review traditional approaches to the study of conflict management behaviors and propose relevant communication studies that refine this research. Throughout my discussion, 1 will highlight aspects that need further development, and thus set the stage for my CUITent study.
Organizational Confliet
Concepts and Definitions
Conflict is part of everyday reality. Because of the various ways in which people deal with this phenomenon, conflict may or may not be publicly expressed. Put otherwise, divergences are only sometimes subjected to open debate. In Kolb and
Putnam's (1992) view, within an institutional context, the various forms of conflict and the processes they deve10p require close examination if we want to understand the routine, mundane activities that constitute organizationallife.
Defined as an "expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and [potential] inference from the other party in achieving their goals" (Hocker & Wilmot, 1985, p. 23), conflict is not only inevitable; it is part of the fabric of complex organizing processes and organizations, and contributes to the durability of organizations (Putnam, 1997). Focusing more expressly 4
on organizational conflict, scholars have defined conflict as the incompatibility between
"interests, goals, values and resources" (Morrill & King Thomas, 1992, p. 402) or as
"opposing organizational action between parties which is not considered to be
legitimate" (Clark, 1988, p. 153).
Overview ofPrevious Research
Generally, conflict studies detail various features oftheir originating societal
contexts; they show that society' s growing complexity is closely connected to dynamic
social and economical trends such as globalization trends or corporate evolution (e.g.,
see Kolb & Putnam, 1992). For instance, people like Marx and Weber saw group
conflict as being rooted in social class differences or organizational hierarchies.
According to Kolb and Putnam (1992), the conflict theories that developed based on this
view acknowledged the unavoidable reality of differences in the workplace and
identified their origins as structural and intergroup attributes of organizations. From this
perspective, conflict resolution implied managerial intervention, introducing another
stream of research on conflict, namely management theories that regarded organizational
conflicts as potentially correctable failures. Thus, management scholars initially mainly
focused on analyzing conflict situations in an attempt to find ways to achieve
cooperation. In addition, early classic management and human relations research
provided insights into organizational conflict management by addressing the controlling
function of management, in particular the informaI or interpersonai dimensions of
leadership (see Mouzelis 1967; Perrow, 1979). Another focal point of organizational
conflict research was the ways in which hierarchy (the structural features of an
organization) and control through authority resulted in conflict. These studies showed 5 how imposed conditions affected interpersonal relationships and, consequently, the bureaucratic rules (Dalton, 1959; Gouldner, 1965).
Rence, the main purpose of the above mentioned research was functionalistic, namely to find ways to achieve cooperation or organizational stability. Rowever, this research did not carefully describe-or often pay any attention at all-to the actual management of contlict and its consequences. Kolb and Putnam (1992) suggested that more recent research on organizational contlict presumes that contlict and its manifestations are pervasive facts of everyday organizational interactions. Put differently, in a way, contlict defines the "essence" of what an organization is and how it is constituted. In their view, this emerging perspective foregrounds what people actually do in contlict situations and how different forms of dealing with conflict co-occur and affect the accomplishment of (an) organizational order rather than explores the sources of or reasons for contlict that obstruct "the" aims of an organization.
In tum, this new perspective is also meant to underline how class, gender, race, and ethnicity, play a central role in the enactment of organizational confliet, in Hne with growing employment demands, globalization trends, and demographic changes.
Currently, scholars are therefore becoming more and more interested in looking at the ways in which broader societal conflicts affect the constitution of organizations (Kolb &
Putnam, 1992). To gain more insight into these elaborate aspects implied by modem organizational confliet, eontlict researchers nowadays approach confliet phenomena by focusing particularly on conflict management behaviors. Renee, their intention is to show the productive outcomes of good conflict management by examining what people do in conflict situations, and how conflict phenomena and different forms of dealing with conflict affect organizational order. 6
Traditianal Appraaches ta the Study afCanflict Management Behaviars
Traditionally, conflict management research has focused on identifying the most popular and effective conflict management behaviors. Throughout the se investigations, conflict management researchers have often refrained from paying attention to the organizational settings in which conflict occurs. Hence, many studies have explored mainly individual conflict management behaviors, regardless of the social (let alone, arganizatianal) contexts. Initially, these studies suggested that individuals managed conflict differently, "by themselves," due to psychological or personality differences and implied that this did not affect the actual organization of a social collective (whether a family, group, or organization). For example, the se studies investigated patterns for effective communication in couples (Ting-Toomey, 1983) or they highlighted correlations between various conflict management behaviors and their medical effects
(Siegman, 1994; Van der Broucke, 1995). Nevertheless, scholars such as Selman (1980) and Canary (2003) offered a broader approach to individual conflict management behaviors. For instance, Selman (1980) examined conflict behavior at the interpersonal level from a social perspective, suggesting that when people attempted to resolve problems in a way that took the perspective of others into account, it resulted in productive conflict management. Canary (2003) also proposed a model ofmanaging interpersonal conflicts that applied to typical, everyday conflict situations, considering that the management of conflict was critical to the quality of relationships. He discussed a variety of factors (e.g. conflict instigating events, individual differences, feedback into previous events, etc.) that impinged on an individual's experience of conflict and suggested appropriate and effective management skills. 7
Sorne classic conflict management studies inspired the organizational conflict
research that is being conducted today. These studies expressly addressed organizational
contexts in an attempt to provide a more complete image of existing conflict management behaviors. Focusing on these behaviors, labeled conflict management
"styles," "techniques," or "instruments," these studies examined conflict phenomena at
the individual, group, or organizationallevel and proposed various "recipes" for conflict
management observation. For instance, Blake and Mouton (1964) found five modes of
handling organizational conflict: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising and
problem solving or confronting. To identify these modes, their self-report study
considered a manager' s attitudes of concem for production and his or her concem for
people. Another grouping of conflict management behaviors was proposed by Thomas
and Kilmann (1974). They proposed two key dimensions: concem for self and concem
for others. In tum, they proposed five interpersonal conflict management styles which
could be applied to organizational contexts: competing, collaborating, avoiding,
accommodating and compromising.
Blake and Mouton's (1964) work inspired other studies (see Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967; Ross & DeWine, 1988), resulting in various schemes ofconflict management
styles. For instance, Ross and DeWine (1988) focused on both individual and dyadic
levels and proposed a "self-report instrument designed to assess conflict styles through
messages used in interpersonal conflict" (p. 3). This questionnaire thus allowed for the
study of messages to assess an individual's conflict management style; to be precise, it
focused on uncovering three message styles: self-oriented, issue-oriented, and other
oriented. Taking an even more communicative perspective, Putnam and Wilson (1982)
saw conflict management as an exchange of communicative strategies between 8
principals. According to Morrill and King Thomas (1992), their study's approach
intended to overcome the untested content validity, low reliabilities, social desirability,
ideological biases, as weIl as the scoring difficulties, inherent in previous organizational
conflict management research that used self-report instruments. Putnam and Wilson
(1982) developed the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (DCCI) to demonstrate that Blake and Mouton's (1964) conflict management styles formed, in fact,
a three-factor structure:
Nonconfrontation: indirect strategies for handling a conflict; choices to avoid or
withdraw from a disagreement; such communicative behaviors as silence,
glossing over differences, and concealing ill feelings. Solution orientation: direct
communication about the conflict; behaviors that aim to find a solution, to
integrate the needs ofboth parties, and to give in or compromise on issues.
Control: direct communication about the disagreement; arguing persistently for
one's position, taking control of the interaction, and advocating one's position.
(p. 647)
Similar to Putnam and Wilson's (1982) work, Black (1990) identified several forms of conflict management that were more "communicative" in nature than earlier research: self-help, avoidance, negotiation, settlement, and toleration. In his view, most social situations are characterized by one ofthese conflict modes. Consequently, the mode of conflict management employed in a certain situation is isomorphic with the given social or organizational context. Following this same direction, De Drew (1997)
proposed four conflict management techniques: contending, yielding, problem solving, 9 and avoiding. In his view, contending implies that each party is committed to its position, and tries to persuade the opposing party to give up. Hence, the parties may display dominant and assertive behavior, manipulate information, use threats or outside help. The opposite of contending is yielding, which implies that parties give into their opponent's demands, while problem solving supposes that parties seek to integrate their own and the other' s interest to achieve mutually satisf)ring outcomes. Finally, avoidance implies the parties' inactivity or withdrawing from dealing with conflict issues.
Analyzing these conflict management strategies, De Drew (1997) also addressed the relationship between conflict issues and conflict management strategies, differentiating between cognitive issues and affective issues. He found that the destructive behaviors such as avoiding and contending produced and bolstered affective issues, whereas constructive behaviors such as problem solving reduced affective issues.
Sorne of these traditional studies offered a more applied perspective on the ways in which these behaviors are used in a given context. Generally, these studies examined the relationship between conflict management behaviors and (1) the interpersonal relationships between the disputing parties, (2) different third-party (e.g., mediator) interventions or the parties' organizational positions, and (3) each party's degree of power. For instance, sorne studies (Baumgartner, 1988; Putnam & Poole, 1987; Putnam
& Wilson, 1982) showed that conflict styles often depend on the relationship
(hierarchical or peer) between disputants and that a conflict management style can even be predicted based on this relationship. This research therefore found that subordinates tended to confront or smooth conflicts with superiors; superiors tended to force conflict outcomes on subordinates or to confront them; and peers tended to avoid, compromise, or smooth the conflicts with each other. In line with this, MorriU (1991 b, 1995) found 10 that principals with weak ties to each other tended to avoid each other and escalate their grievances directly to disputes, demonstrating receptiveness to third-party interventions rather than trying to settle grievances themselves through, for example, open negotiation. Morrill' s ( 1991 a) other work indicated that during conflict corporate executive' s receptivity to internaI or external third parties varied across firms and within firms. Moreover, among top managers, the choice of which conflict management technique to use was influenced by their organizational rank and respectability (Morrill,
1989). Finally, several studies looked at the power available to disputants in relation to the conflict management behaviors they used. For instance, Black's study (1990) discovered that those who had power tended to suppress conflict, while those who were more or less powerless tended to avoid or tolerate it. Thus, the powerless often dealt with conflict in the few ways available to them, causing the further marginalization of their positions.
To summarize, the studies 1 have discussed each tried to understand conflict management by using various conflict measurement instruments. They focused on finding relationships between specifie conflict management behaviors and different variables, such as power, organizational structure, or interpersonal relationships. In tum, they showed that the way organizational conflict can be managed depends on specifie social aspects of the organizational context in which it occurs and that it can thus be predicted based on different factors.
This previous work is limited in various ways. It may offer useful maps for the study of organizational conflict management, yet thereby unduly highlights especially its managerial and functionalistic aspects. AIso, it does not provide a clear differentiation of conflict management behaviors specifie to individuals or groups in an organizational Il setting. More problematic is the fact that these self-report studies do not provide much empirical insight into the ways in which organizational conflict is actually managed through everyday interactions. That is, by looking at communication variables, it presents a rather static image of conflict and also emphasizes a focus on public and formaI modes of conflict management, disregarding the fact that organizational members often manage conflicts more subtly, indirectly, privately, "behind the scenes," or "off stage". Sorne communication scholars have addressed these issues, as 1 will discuss next.
Conflict Management from a (More) Communicative Point of View
Sorne scholars (Kolb & Bartunek, 1992; Morrill & King Thomas, 1992) have taken a more communicative approach to the study of organizational conflict management. Morrill and King Thomas (1992) started with the assumption that "the two dimensional matrix that forms the basis of current conflict measurement instruments may not accurately conceptualize conflict management behaviors as they develop in organizational contexts" (p. 403). They consequently conceptualized conflict management as a disputing process involving the social escalation from grievance to conflict, and from conflict to dispute. In their view, "grievance", "conflict," and
"disputing" are "stages in the disputing process that may or may not occur under particular social conditions" (Morrill & King Thomas, 1992, p. 404). This three-stage model comprises individual and organizational conflict levels, providing for a broader view of organizational conflict. The grievance stage implies a "pre-conflict" phase; it is a first "volley" in which "a pers on or a group reacts to a real or perceived violation of a set ofnorms, rules, or individual or societal standards" (p. 404). The conflict stage signifies the direct or indirect exchange of grievances between the individuals or groups, 12 while the disputing stage refers to public conflicts that require third-party intervention.
Morrill and King Thomas deduced fifteen conflict management behaviors that occur during the disputing process from the anthropological and sociologicalliterature. They used these behaviors to develop the disputing process instrument (DPI), a self-report instrument for the quantitative study of conflict situations. After refining this instrument, it contained measured conflict management behaviors: (1) avoidance: an aggrieved party curtails unilaterally aH or sorne social interaction with an offender, (2) conciliatory negotiation: the aggrieved parties approach one another willing to discuss and reconcile grievances in a mutually acceptable way, (3) covert retaliation: the aggrieved party produces secret, aggressive actions against the offender, (4) discipline: an aggrieved superior covertly or overtly punishes a subordinate offender with reference to a set of explicit standards of conduct, (5) overt retaliation: the aggrieved party displays direct, aggressive criticism of an offender's behavior, (6) third-party mobilization: the aggrieved party refers a grievance to a third party either for representation against an opponent or for settlement, and (7) toleration: endurance and inaction by an aggrieved party against an offender.
By identifying and measuring these seven conflict management behaviors in an actual organizational context, Morrill and King Thomas' study made a great contribution to conflict research. It provided tools for more detailed analyses of conflict situations, thus enhancing the understanding of organizational conflict. Moreover, by conceptualizing conflict as a disputing process and by exploring its different stages
(grievance, conflict, dispute), it showed how important is to consider that these stages
"may or may not occur under particular social conditions" (Morrill & King Thomas,
1992, p. 404), and that they do not necessarily form neat sequences. Put otherwise, if 13 aggrieved parties never exchange grievances, they may escalate their complaints directly to the dispute stage. In the same way, conflicts may de-escalate back to grievance if one party decides to end the argument.
The second example of work that advances traditional approaches to conflict management research was offered by researchers in Kolb and Bartunek's 1992 edited book, Hidden Conjlict in Organizations. This book gathered different studies that emphasized informaI, behind-the-scenes, private conflict management, and thereby enriched extant research that mainly focused on public, formaI ways of managing conflict. In other words, these studies diverged from previous works that highlighted the public side of organizational conflict, yet not the private aspects that enable (and prevent) the public emergence of conflict. Moreover, these studies suggested that the occurrence of other forms of handling conflict in organizations may surpass these public and formaI ways, because organizational activities are sources of daily conflicts that generate specific informaI conflict management behaviors. In the introductory chapter of this book, Kolb and Putnam (1992) discussed these particular features and the more or less common features and approaches of the studies collected in the book. According to these authors, traditional approaches to conflict management typically center on certain aspects of conflict and ignore the bipolar opposites (e.g., public/private, formal/informal, and rational/nonrational) implied by conflictive settings. Thus, the joint contribution of the studies is that they examine the understudied poles of these dualities as well as the relationships between them as they surface in conflict situations. The studies therefore highlighted the less obvious and covert forms of conflict management, presuming that
"formaI and deliberate forms are probably rare in comparison with the ongoing 14 skirmishes, the gossiping, the lumping, and the small vengeances that take place as part ofnormal daily activity" (p. 22).
Another feature ofthese studies is their focus on the disputing process, in line with Morrill and King Thomas' (1992) work-in fact, MorriU (1992) is an author of one of the chapters in Hidden Conflict in Organizations. As Kolb and Putnam noted, the disputing perspective "shifts the focus ofinquiry from structures and formaI rules to the processes of conflict expression and action" (p. Il). Moreover, according to Sarat (as cited in Kolb & Putnam, 1992, p. Il), this perspective allows conflict researchers to analyze the procedures by which conflict is processed as the ways that issues become meaningful and resolved, and to analyze the conflicting parties' behaviors as they come to light over time. Following Black's (1990) and Nader and Todd's (1978) models, Kolb and Putnaln proposed the following basic forms of conflict management from a disputing perspective: self-help (force, vengeance), avoidance (withdrawing from the relationship), "lumping it" (tolerating the situation without public comment), . negotiation, and the involvement ofthird parties as mediators, arbitrators, and/or adjudicators. In tum, they suggested that these basic forms presuppose "multiple tracks that are pursued depending on who is involved, how the social drama is orchestrated, and the form dispute resolution takes" (p. Il ). In addition, they argued that this disputing perspective "implies a complex interaction of issues, players, context and dispute processes as the nexus for understanding how conflicts are managed in different settings" (p. Il).
The works l have just overviewed contribute to a more dynamic, communicative understanding of organizational conflict management. Moreover, especially the research in the book Hidden Conflict in Organizations suggest that studies that are more 15
ethnographic in nature allow us to observe organizational conflict management as it
occurs "in front of our eyes" and thereby pro vide detailed insight into its actual
dynamics. Further, these works show that the dynamics of disputing are c10sely linked to
the organizational and larger societal contexts in which they occur and, in a way, also
play a major role in constituting these contexts.
While these works offer an intelligible picture of how people "do" conflict
management, though, they generally miss analytical precision and thereby do not
provide sufficient insight into the detailed ways in which organizational members
actually manage a specific organizational conflict in a given time and space by
interacting in specific ways. For example, Morrill and King Thomas' (1992) study
presented a self-report questionnaire for the measurement of conflict management, but it
did not investigate the disputing processes "in action" in different organizational
settings. In other words, their disputing process instrument (DPI) comprises seven
conflict management behaviors, yet it does not enable the investigation of how people perform these behaviors in actual situations, interactionally speaking. In the same vein,
the studies presented in Hidden Conflict in Organizations mainly looked at disputing
processes in various organizational settings by analyzing disputants' (interview)
accounts and ethnographic field notes without offering in-depth analyses of interactions.
Hence, more micro-level studies are needed to shed light on the ways in which
organizational conflicts are managed privately and informally through everyday
interactions. Sorne scholars (e.g., Firth, 1995; Francis, 1986; Walker, 1995) have
conducted this kind of research, but they mainly focused on one conflict management
technique, namely formaI negotiation between two parties (mostly between an
organization's management and a labor union). To complement and further deepen this 16 research, careful empirical studies are needed that look at the different ways in which various organizational members manage organizational conflicts in less formaI, behind the-scenes ways through informaI conversations, business meetings, and so on.
The current study aimed to provide such an anaIysis by focusing on the ways in which members of an organization enact and manage conflict through their interactions.
Specifically, in this study, 1 explored how an organizational conflict is conversationally managed in the context of a management meeting. In addition, by analyzing this interaction, 1 tried to understand the actual unfolding ofthe disputing process as described by Morrill and King Thomas (1992) and Kolb and Putnam (1992), moving back and forth between grievance and conflict.
T 0 guide this kind of an analysis, 1 will present a conversation analytic framework, rooted in ethnomethodology, in the next chapter. This framework will allow me to examine how meaning is constructed through everyday conversations and, more specifically, how conflict management behaviors are embedded in conversationaI behaviors and thus both help to enact and manage a conflict. 17
Chapter 3
Theoretieal Framework
This chapter provides the theoretical framework for my empirical study. Hence, my objective here is to overview sorne key assumptions and notions of ethnomethodology (referred to as "EM") and one of its "branches," conversation analysis (referred to as "CA"). In other words, in this chapter, 1 will show how the features and notions ofboth these approaches enable a more detailed way ofstudying an organizational disputing process than the ones that have been presented in previous research. Since CA is derived from EM, CA (rather than EM) will form the main basis ofthis study. Therefore, 1 will first demonstrate the suitability ofthis analytical approach and show how CA can be used to inform the current study. To allow for a more comprehensive understanding of CA, 1 will then overview the origins ofEM and sorne of its central notions. Thereafter, 1 will explain the origins of CA and its main assumptions, as well as discuss its relation to EM. To conc1ude, 1 will formulate the research questions that guided my investigation, based on the theoretical framework developed in this chapter.
CA and Confliet Management Behaviors
As mentioned, conflict generally occurs when people who are interdependent upon each other oppose each other because they perceive an incompatibility between their interests or goals. Since people generally feel a need to be socially recognized and supported or accepted, they experience conflict when encountering opposition to or disagreement about their actions, beliefs, and so on. In other word, people engage in 18
disputing when their interests, goals, etc. are rejected, opposed or ignored. In
organizational settings, disputing typically happens through interpersonal and intergroup
communication that highlights individual and/or group differences and similarities. In
this process, the effective use of conflict management behaviors is key.
As suggested at the end of the previous chapter, micro-analytic approaches are required to study this process. Here the relevance of CA becomes clear, since CA techniques allow a researcher to examine the interpretive process that generates and
shapes a conflict through everyday interactions. As Moch and Bartunek (cited in
Bartunek et al., 1992) noted,
While sorne organizational conflicts are objective, arising out oftruly
incompatible goals or scarcity of resources, much organizational conflict does
not neatly fit into this category. Conflict is often a performance to which
different audiences attach different meaning. Conflict arises and escalates, in
part, from members operating out of different interpretive schemata and taking
action to create and maintain their versions ofreality. (Bartunek et al., 1992, p.
218).
CA allows a researcher to explore how interpretive dynamics generate conflict as weIl as help to manage it. That is, as an analytical tool, CA allows the careful
observation of successive turns oftalk where the speaker and the recipient negotiate meaning, and respond to preceding turns (utterances or actions) according to their
specifie interpretation ofthese turns. By analyzing the se interlocking turns oftalk, the researcher can observe how opposing parties generate, enact and deal with conflict 19 through the dynamic interpretive processes they express during their interaction.
Therefore, CA is an ideal investigation to01 for conflict phenomena from a disputing
perspective, considering that this perspective aims to observe how conflict is enacted
and managed interactionally.
These claims are corroborated by Putnam (2001) who argued that conflict management research shou1d take a more communicative approach to understand the
disputing process and that researchers should find tools that enable the detailed
observation of conflict as it unravels in actual situations. Hence, research should center
on the interpretive processes that underlie the ways in which a disagreement takes on
different meanings and become transformed through time (Putnam, 2001). Additionally,
The microprocesses of interaction merge with interpretations to show how
conflicts are named and labelled, blamed, and explained. That is, the role of
communication centers on the way interaction, meanings, and context alter the
nature of an unfolding and continuing dispute. (Putnam, 200 1, p. 19)
As this quote implies, conflict phenomena are embedded in micro processes of interaction and in joint interpretation. Hence, it is essential to conduct micro-level analysis of disputing processes and, at the same time, to consider the continuously
unfolding, dynamic character of the interactions that make this disputing possible. In
addition, throughout these micro processes one needs to observe the contextual elements
and how they influence the analyzed interaction.
Before explaining CA in more detail, l will discuss hs theoretical origins, namely
EM, as weIl as its relevance for the current study. 20
Overview of EM
EM 's Origins and Assumptions
Harold Garfinkel set the stage for EM in 1967 by publishing his Studies in
Ethnomethodology. In 1954, according to Ten Have (2004), "Garfinkel [already] coined the tenn ethnomethodology when he was involved in a study of jury deliberations and was struck by the seriousness of the 'methodology' those 'lay' deliberations displayed"
(p. 17). According to Leiter (1980), EM refers to the "the study of commonsense knowledge" or "the study of how the typifications of the stock of knowledge are brought into play through the practices of commonsense reasoning to create and preserve a sense of social reality" (pp. vi; 25). In Livingston's (1987) view, this analytical approach is
"the study of the common, everyday naturally occurring, mundane methods that are used by people to produce and manage the common, everyday activities of the everyday social world" (p. 10). More recently, Ten Have (2004) stated that "ethnomethodology is a special kind of social inquiry, dedicated to explicating the ways in which collectivity members create and maintain a sense of order and intelligibility in sociallife" (p. 14).
EM's founder, Garfinkel (1967), used the tenn "ethnomethodology" to signify "the investigation of the rational properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices of everyday life" (p. Il). Taken together, these definitions suggest that EM is an approach to the study of sociallife that centers on the methods people use to manage their commonsense knowledge in order to conduct everyday activities that help to create and preserve a sense of social order. Thus, one ofEM's most central preoccupations-mainly arising from Garfinkel's (1967) work-is to show how social actors analyze their circumstances 21 and are able to constitute an intersubjective understanding ofthem. Another key issue addressed by Garfinkel' s (1967) studies is the importance of analyzing the "unavoidably contextual character of ordinary understandings" (p. 226); in other words, it is essential to examine the context of an event because it offers countless resources for its interpretation.
Garfinkel's work was highly influenced by Alfred Schutz's ideas. For instance,
Schutz proposed that it is through their commonsense knowledge that social actors navigate the social world:
The social is interpreted in terms of common-sense categories and constructs
which are largely social in origin; [ ... ] these constructs are the resources with
which social actors interpret their situations of action, grasp the intentions and
motivations of others, achieve intersubjective understandings and coordinated
actions and, more generally navigate the social world. (Schutz, cited in Heritage,
1987, pp. 229)
Hence, commonsense knowledge became a key element of Garfinkel's work. 1 will de scribe this and sorne other key ethnomethodological notions next.
According to Leiter (1980), one way to study the constitution of social reality is to make a distinction between a person's perception ofreality and the concrete reality.
This orientation belongs to "laymen and social scientists" (p. 26). The second course is to assume that "the perceived reality and the concrete reality are identical" (p. 27). An ethnomethodological position implies the following: "Ethnomethodology uses the version of 'reality as identical with perception' as an analytical tool for rendering 22
people's sense-making activities (methods) observable" (Leiter, 1980, p. 29). From this
point ofview, it is important to examine the methods people use to create a sense of
reality - a social reality they experience as the "real" social world. For example, on all
occasions - and thus in conflict situations as well - members of an organization create
their context through ongoing interactions by invoking particular social "facts" they perce ive to be facts. In other words, ethnomethodologically speaking, these people
"navigate" the social world with the understanding that reality is just as they perce ive it.
As suggested, commonsense knowledge is an important concept for
understanding EM. As Leiter (1980) stated, three interrelated phenomena are generally
labeled "commonsense knowledge": the stock ofknowledge at hand, the practices of
commonsense reasoning and the commonsense reality or the natural attitude. Schutz
spoke of the stock of knowledge at hand consisting of recipes (general ways of going
about doing things), rules ofthumb, social types, maxims and definitions. For example,
one employee whose objective is to manage an existing conflict with his or her superior
in an amicable way may know that there are sorne things he or she has to do (or avoid to
do); he or she has a certain recipe and tries to behave accordingly.
ln Leiter' s (1980) view, the stock of knowledge at hand displays several
properties: it is socially derived (it does not come from one's personal experience alone),
so the pers on who wants to manage the conflict follows a recipe that usually works; it is
not his or her personal experience that guides him or her, but something he or she has
leamed "works" (or tends to work), socially speaking. This stock of knowledge at hand
is nonetheless socially distributed. That is, what each person knows is different from the
next. Hence, people are experts in various fields. Accordingly, in an organization, each
employee possesses different skills; therefore, he or she has various positions within the 23
organization and different kinds of knowledge about how to constitute its order, or about ways to manage conflict situations.
Finally, the stock of knowledge at hand is constituted through, and expressed in, everyday language. People acquire their skills through the language they use in their daily interactions (in school, etc.). Consequently, the stock ofknowledge is not a neatly and logically ordered "storehouse" of information and typifications, implying that the
specific meaning of its elements is context-dependent and that the typifications, maxims, rules ofthumb and definitions can all have multiple meanings. For instance, during an organizational management meeting, participants may debate about possible solutions aiming to change their market strategy, and thus redress their organization's financial
situation. In this context, an utterance like "we need to find a niche" will certainly develop market-related understandings for the participants, specifically, the need to address a small but profitable segment ofthe market. That is, they will understand this is
"in accordance with his or her current practical purposes and relevancies" (Schutz, as cited in Heritage, 1984, p. 53). Therefore, the context in which this utterance is made almost exc1udes the probability that participants will understand this utterance as referring to a recess in a wall or a crevice - the primary meanings of the word "niche".
Also important in the study of the way people accomplish social order, as Leiter
(1980) argued, are the pracfices ofcommonsense reasoning, referring to "a set of methods for tuming our personal experience into experience of an objective reality [ ... ] these practices are also used to decide when to use selected bits and pieces of the stock of knowledge at hand" (p. Il). People use commonsense reasoning to decide both the situated use and the meaning of the contents of the stock ofknowledge at hand. For instance, an aggrieved employee may want to avoid conflict with his or her superiors. In 24
this case, although the employee would rather miss certain organizational reunions for
employees, he or she will choose to attend, since these reunions imply that all employees
participate. These general ways ofgoing about doing things in that organization, which
presume that everybody attends these reunions, is already part of the stock ofknowledge
at hand ofthis employee. Thus, relying on this stock ofknowledge, he or she will
mobilize commonsense reasoning when situating the meaning of her gesture of attending or not, in relation to his or her desire that is to avoid conflict.
The natural attitude ofeveryday life or the commonsense reality is the third
aspect of commonsense knowledge as ethnomethodologists tend to understand it. This
refers to interactants' sense of social structure and usually is denoted by different terms,
such as "commonsense knowledge of social structures, the everyday world, the mundane
reality [ ... ] the prejude du monde, formaI structure ofpractical actions, and the sense of
social structure" (Leiter, 1980, p. 68). Schutz was, again, a major influence on Garfinkel when it came to explicating the notion of "commonsense reality." Schutz mainly studied
"the processes of sense making that members of society, including sociologists, use to
construct the social world and its factual properties, its sense of being ready-made and
independent of perception" (Leiter, 1980, p. 5). The natural attitude concerns people's
knowledge and experience of the social world as a factual environment. It is a
characterization of the social world as it is experienced by the people living in it. In an
organizational setting, it is obvious that employees' overall behavior exposes their
acquired sense of social structure. This is observable, for example, through the ways in which they interact with each other based on organizational positions and perceptions of
organizational status. As 1 will explain in more detail shortly, these properties of
commonsense knowledge are c10sely related to the ethnomethodological notions of 25 accounting and rejlexivity, because, while people interact, they count on commonsense knowledge to guide their actions in such a way that their sense is clear or explainable, as well as to produce these actions in contexts that help understanding their intended meaning.
For Leiter (1980), "accounts of aIl types produced by members of society constitute the major phenomena studied by ethnomethodologists; [they] are important because they are the means by which members of society create and sustain their sense of social structure" (p. 162). In Garfinkel's terms, to construct an account is to make a past, present, or future object or event observable and understandable to one self or to someone else. The ethnomethodological interest in accounts therefore does not lie in the content of accounts, but in "locating and describing the accounting practices members use to render objects and events observable as objects and events in and of an intersubjective world" (Leiter, 1980, p. 163). As Ten Have (2004) explained, there is a difference between the way the term is used in ordinary talk, which is "often associated with liability," and the ethnomethodological use, which is "closer to intelligibi1ity or explicability, in the sense that actors are supposed to design their actions in such a way that their sense is clear right away or at least explicable on demand" (p. 19). For
Garfinkel (1967), the "understandability" and "expressibility" of an activity as a sensible action is at the same time an essential part ofthat action. For instance, ifwe take an organization's management meeting, the usual meeting context (the office, chairs, etc.) as well as the participants (their displayed conduct) serve to understand and express the meaning of actions while they are also a part of, and constitute, that setting.
By using the term "reflexivity" Garfinkel (1967) meant to signify the "that incarnate, self explicating property of ordinary actions" (Ten Have, 2004, p. 20). Like 26
with "accountability," there is a difference between Garfinkel's use of the term and its
everyday, commonsensical use. Ethnomethodologically speaking, reflexivity implies that an action's meaning is embodied in the context in which the action is produced; the
context makes that action intelligible and shows how a specific action could be
interpreted. As Ten Have (2004) noted, "[Reflexivity] basically just denotes an object's
relation to itself, but it has mostly been used in the social sciences in the sense of a caU to a self conscious view of social science' s activities" (p. 20). A good example could be
a management meeting in which participants have to vote for a project that aims to
restructure the company. In this case, participants know their vote on this matter has
validity and is only considered when expressed in this context, which makes their
actions intelligible.
Another key term in EM is indexicality, which indicates the local, time-bound,
and situational aspects of action. For Heritage (1984), indexical expressions are those
whose sense depends on the local circumstances in which they are uttered and/or those
to which they apply. As he stated, "the sense of ordinary descriptive terms is powerfully
influenced by the context in which they are uttered" (p. 143). For instance, during a
management-union negotiation, the union representative may say "we're walking out."
In this particular context, this utterance will certainly mean that the union is not content
with the management's offer; that they no longer want to continue the negotiations; and
that they will go on strike. Put otherwise, this utterance has a specific meaning in this
context of a management-union negotiation, which is different from its generally
accepted meaning when no particular context is involved (Le., to leave, depart, or exit).
The final term that is important for understanding EM is the documentary
method ofinterpretation. In Leiter' s (1980) view, through the use of the documentary 27 method of interpretation, we create and sustain the "facticity" of the social world, since this method provides objects and events with consistency or the sense that they are the same over time. In comparison to the "objective method," which considers an object or gesture as being unique and interprets these objects or gestures as su ch, not taking into account any existing patterns ofthese "objects" or "gestures," the documentary method ofinterpretation "supplies meanings that are not dependent upon a single gesture"
(p.l67). For example, the ongoing conflictive interaction of a management-union negotiation rests on the actors' knowledge about what a negotiation meeting is, so they act according to a set of assumptions about a negotiation meeting setting. Hence, it is through the documentary method of interpretation that the primary context of the analysis is generated. Put differently, people follow pre-existent action patterns and synchronize their actions with these patterns, because they provide meaning for the se actions and generate a sense of social structure.
As mentioned, EM - presented here through my brief overview of sorne of its central concepts - offers the broad framework for my study and sets the stage for CA.
CA offers a more precise framework for my investigation by providing specific techniques that allow for the empirical analysis of the ways in which people construct meaning through everyday conversations and, in the case ofthis study, enact and manage organizational conflict.
Overview of CA
CA 's Origins and Assumptions
Predominantly focusing on "the direct analysis of social action" (Heritage, 1987, p. 256) or "actual, particular social actions and organized sequences ofthem" 28
(Schegloff, 1980, p.151), CA can be seen as a specialized approach of EM. This approach originated due to two major claims, namely (1) Goffinan' s (1983) conviction that "conversational interaction is an institutional order in which interactional rights and obligations are linked not only to personal face and identity, but also to macro social institutions" (cited in Heritage, 2005, p. 103); and (2) Garfinkel's (1967) idea that
"analyzing conversation in terms of rules and practices that impose moral obligations, needs to be supplemented by recognizing the importance of understanding and intersubjectivity" (cited in Heritage, 2005, p. 103). Hence, perhaps conversation analysts' most central aim is to uncover the conversational procedures through which interactions are produced and understood. In other words, renowned conversation analysts like Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) claimed that CA looks at "the methods or procedures by which ordinary social participants conduct their interactional affairs" (Heritage 1987, p. 257).
The first CA studies that were conducted can be divided into two streams
(Heritage, 1987): (1) those arising from Garfinkel's and Sacks' concem with
"descriptive accounting" (see Garfinkel, 1984; Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970; Sacks 1963); and (2) those focusing on the sequential organization of interaction, a very predominant topic in CA publications after 1972. In his more recent work on institutional contexts,
Heritage (2005) made another important distinction: (1) basic CA "epitomized by the entire research output of Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson, and others, investigates conversation as an institution" (p. 104) and (2) institutional CA, which "builds on the findings of basic CA to examine the operation of social institutions in talk, [ ... ] to understand the work of social institution" (p. 105). 29
In pursuing its goals, Heritage (1987) explained, CA relies on three fundamental assumptions. First, CA presumes that interaction is organized in reference to institutionalized procedures that, for analytical purposes, can be treated as structuring devices in their own rights. Put otherwise, interaction is structurally organized. Second,
CA presumes that contributions to interaction (utterances, gestures, actions, etc.) are both context-shaped (in that actions cannot be adequately understood without reference to the context of preceding actions to which they are generally understood to respond) and context-renewing (in that each CUITent action will propose a current here-and-now definition of the situation to which subsequent talk will be oriented). Third, conversation analysts generally presume that social actions work in very detailed, minute ways. In tum, they argue that the specifie details of interaction cannot be ignored without damaging the prospects for coherent and effective analysis (Heritage, 1987, p. 258).
Hence, CA centers on organizational features of talk and action sequences. In fact, Maynard and Clayman (1991) argued that the identifying mark of most conversation analytic studies is the organization of sequences. Put differently, CA focuses on the way simple conversational procedures interlock to pro duce more complex organizational structures. It is therefore predominantly concemed with the way
"utterances accomplish particular actions by virtue of their placement and participation within sequences of action. It is sequences and tums - within - sequences which are thus the primary units of analysis" (Heritage, 1987, p. 245). This is why "the sequential 'next positioned' linkage between any two actions can be a critical resource by which a first speaker (and, of course, 'overhearing' social scientists) can determine the sense which a second made of his or her utterance" (Heritage, 1987, p. 257). A good example of this phenomenon can be seen when "sorne CUITent tum's talk projects a relevant next activity 30 or range of activities, to be accompli shed by another speaker in the next tum" (Heritage,
1987, p.257). Heritage shows that this projection ofa relevant next activity may be accompli shed through recognizable pairs ofaction. Therefore, many conversational actions occur within the framework of such pair linkage (i.e. question-answer, invitation-acceptance/refusal). Throughout his work, Sacks proposed the notion of adjacency pair. This concept refers to "a sequence oftwo utterances which are adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first part and second part, and typed so that a first part requires a particular second part (or range of second parts)" (Sacks in
Heritage, 1987, p. 256). In turn,
Conversation is not an endless series of interlocking adjacency pairs in which
sharply constrained options confront the next speaker. Rather conversation is
informed by the general assumption - common to both speakers and hearers -
that utterances which are placed immediately next to sorne prior are to be
understood as produced in response to or, more loosely in relation to that prior.
(Heritage, 1987, p. 261)
Now that 1 have overviewed sorne of the key features of CA, 1 will briefly
discuss how these features developed from specifie ethnomethodological premises. This
will explain how CA originated from EM and clarify their relationship.
The Relationship between CA and EM
Previous studies (Lynch, 1994; Maynard & Clayman, 1991; Ten Have, 1990;
Whalen, 1992) explicate the relationship between CA and EM, particularly the ways in 31 which CA emerged from EM. For my study, it is particularly important to remember the second assumption of CA, namely that "contributions to interaction are context oriented" (Heritage, 1987, p. 242) and therefore context-shaped and context-renewing.
For Heritage (1987), this assumption "can be clearly traced to Garfinke1's pioneering remarks on the indexical and reflex ive characteristics of talk and action" (p.
242). For Maynard and Clayman (1991), the understandability of any utterance depends on the circumstances in which it appears because aU naturallanguage is indexical.
Drawing on Garfinkel and Sacks' (1970) study, their research demonstrated that "there is no time out from the phenomenon" and that "hypotheses, ideal types, interview schedules, co ding formats, and so on, aIl show the effort to employ abstract expressions that will prevail over the contingencies inherent in the situations where such expressions are meant to apply" (p. 397). Based on the same study, Maynard and Clayman (1991) found that the properties of indexical expressions are ordered and socially organized.
Their orderliness is "an ongoing, practical accomplishment of every actual occasion of commonplace speech and conducr' (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970, p. 341, cited in Maynard
& Clayman, 1991, p. 398). Maynard and Clayman regarded the work oftying and adjacency-pairing as the key to the accomplishment of intelligible conversational activities, suggesting the importance of positioning utterances for purposes of intelligibility. That is, interactants comprehend utterances by considering them in relation to preceding talk and display their understanding through tying their own utterances to previous ones (Sacks, 1974, in Manynard & Clayman, 1991). Hence, iftalk is indexical, as in the use of phrases and other clauses whose meaning is contextually derived, it is a phenomenon accomplished while participants build utterances in a sequential fashion to make them intelligible and to show their understanding in precise 32 ways. According to Maynard and Clayman (1991), "One bound between CA and EM
[therefore] resides in the extensive exploration, provided by CA, into one profoundly ordered property of indexical expressions, that is, their sequential organization" (p. 400).
After this general overview of CA, 1 will now explain how this approach served as the theoretical framework for my empirical research on disputing in a specific organizational setting.
The Study of Disputing from a Conversation Analytic Point of View
As 1 explained, CA allows a researcher to empirically observe how people construct meaning through everyday conversations. More specifically, CA provides analytical techniques that can foeus a researcher's attention on micro interactions. From
îhis point ofview, it is important to consider the assumption that utterances produced in an interaction are related or respond to prior utterances. This is how interactants produce an intelligible conversation.
These interlocked sma]] units of interaction successively display the interpretive processes ofboth the speaker and the hearer. As discussed in chapter 2, communication researchers studying conflict focus on the interpretive processes that opposing interactants convey through language in order to improve our understanding of disputing processes. On a micro level of analysis where meaning is generated and perceived, the researcher has the chance to examine the conversational behaviors people use to enact and manage conflict. Moreover, the second CA assumption (i.e., contributions to interaction are context-shaped and context-renewing) is useful for analyzing a disputing process, because it focuses the researcher's attention on the way the dispute emerges and unfolds through this continuous shaping and renewal of the interactional context. In this 33 way, the dynamics of an ongoing interaction can help to understand the dynamics of the disputing process, particularly how opponents - through their contributions to interaction - conversationally enact and manage conflict. By observing these dynamics, researchers may also outline sorne (or aIl) of the stages of a disputing process mentioned by MorriU and King Thomas (1992): grievance, conflict, and dispute. It goes without saying that to conduct a sound conversation analysis, a conflict researcher needs to pay attention to aH the relevant details of an interaction.
Research Questions
To guide my investigation, 1 derived the following research questions (RQs) from the foregoing discussion:
RQ 1: What do members of an organization do, conversationally speaking, to
manage conflict in a particular organizational context?
RQ2: How do people conversationally de-escalate conflict to a grievances stage?
RQ3: How do people conversationally prevent a grievance from becoming a
conflict or a dispute?
ln order to develop informed responses to these questions, 1 conducted an empirical analysis of a management meeting. In the next chapter, 1 will introduce the case 1 studied and explain the method 1 used to conduct this analysis. 34
CbapterA
Case Description and Researcb Metbod
ln this chapter, 1 will discuss the way 1 collected the data for my study and describe the broader case 1 investigated. Theo, 1 will de scribe how 1 analyzed these data by using specific CA techniques, inc1uding the commonly used transcription conventions for this kind of analysis. To conc1ude, 1 will provide sorne important conc1uding remarks on the method 1 employed.
Data: Tbe Case of After Mr. Sam
As mentioned in the first chapter, 1 used the documentary After Mr. Sam as the data for my study. Edited and directed by Arthur Hammond, the documentary was produced by the National Film Board of Canada in 1974, based on recordings made in
1969. The documentary shows an important period of Steinberg Ltd.'s existence, a well known Canadian company run by Mr. Sam Steinberg. That is, Mr. Sam's succession was about to be decided; hence, this was a major moment in the company' s history as weil as the main issue that animated the management's debates at that time. The documentary consists of sections showing several meetings held by this company' s top management, offering useful data for micro-analytic studies on the ways in which organizational members' accomplish social order through their interactions. Sorne organizational communication studies have already looked at specific sections ofthis documentary.
Gathered in the edited book by François Cooren (2007), Interacting and Organizing:
Analyses ofa Management Meeting, these studies have mainly focused on interactional aspects related to leadership, emotions, and decision making. Although many ofthese 35 studies have conducted detailed analyses on sections ofthis documentary, they have not adopted an approach similar to the one proposed by this study. Following the approach on conflict described in the previous chapters, 1 selected and analyzed a specifie moment in these management meetings. Specifically, 1 examined the selected fragment by focusing my analysis on what do people do conversationally to manage conflict in a particular situation and how people actually move back and forth between grievance and conjlict. To allow for a detailed observation of the selected segment, 1 used the transcription ofthis documentary as provided in Cooren's (2007) Interacting and
Organizing: Analyses ofa Management Meeting (1 have reproduced this transcript in the
Appendix).
Before discussing the method that allowed me to perform this analysis, 1 will overview the case 1 studied. This will provide a context for my analysis and will help me show why 1 selected this excerpt for this investigation.
Overview of the Case
The documentary, After Mr. Sam, is organized in three parts. The first part presents the company, Mr. Sam's successfulleadership, and parts ofa meeting where the management committee decides the agenda for their three-day conference at
Palomino. The second part shows fragments of the management meetings held at
Palomino where the debates center on issues concerning the structure of the organization and something the meeting participants refer to as "family organization." The last part shows the discussion about Mr. Sam's succession; that is, the participants debating the necessary qualities of the successor to be nominated by Mr. Sam. According toAfter Mr.
Sam, Steinberg Ltd. had become one of the largest companies in Canada. With Mr. Sam 36 as president, during his SO years ofleadersmp the company grew from a small grocery store to an international company operating in retailing, manufacturing and real estate.
Although the focal point of the documentary seems to be the nomination ofMr. Sam's successor, other issues center on Mr. Sam' s retirement, the company' s structure and professional management. The company had grown too large to maintain the old managerial style. The organization's assets totaled 224 million dollars, sales of553 million dollars and more than 18 000 employees. Therefore, along with debating the succession problem, the management committee had the task to propose a new structure so that the company's leadership could be redesigned. The core aspects ofthese debates emerged from the fact that tbis well-known and (at the time) growing company was a family-owned company that was partially run by the Steinberg family, facts that influence the way the meeting' s attendants approached the two principal issues on the meetings agenda: redefining the organizational structure and electing a new president.
AlI the participants' actions should lead to the company' s future growth, as this was the main goal of the meetings. Thus, "the democratic decisions" to be made in these meetings resulted from an "open" negotiation among the management committee members (containing family as weIl as non-family members).
Developing the new structure for the company before having elected the president would allow a certain redistribution of the power inside the company, which could be a disadvantage for the new president. That is, the new president could find himself in the position of running a company whose redesigned structure diminished his decision-making power and increased the managerial autonomy. Moreover, it is possible that the actual president, Mr. Sam Steinberg, had already thought ofwhom would be his successor, a fact that went against the meetings' supposed democratic nature. 37
After having provided a general overview of the case, 1 will now discuss the main events presented in tbis documentary in more detail. However, to better understand the participants' actions, their positioning, and their displayed behavior during these meetings, let me first introduce the "characters" in the "drama" 1 studied.
The Characters in After Mr. Sam
The main characters are the people who, at the time the documentary was produced, were all members of the organization's top management. Besides their leadership positions in the company, sorne ofthem were also members of the Steinberg family. 1 willlist these actors and mention their position witbin the company. Where applicable, 1 will highlight their family relation to Mr. Sam:
Sam Steinberg - President~
Arnold Steinberg - Vice President, Administration & Financing, Harvard
graduate, nephew ofMr. Sam (Nathan's son)~
James Doyle - Vice President (Legal), juridical counsellor;
Jack Levine - Vice President, Director of Quebec Division~
John Paré - Vice President, Director of Personnel Department~
Harry Suffrin - Director Organizational Development and Market Research
Department~
Mel Dobrin - Executive Vice President Retailing, son in law~
Oscar Plotnik - Ontario Division~
Irving Ludmer - Vice president, Director of Expansion and Development - Real
Estate Division; 38
Guy Normandin - Vice President, Manufacturing;
Nathan Steinberg - Senior Vice President, Director of Marketing and Publicity
Department, brother;
Morris Steinberg - Director of Supplying Department, brother;
Bill Howieson - Vice President, Comptroller;
Sam Gerstel - Assistant to the President, Administration Council.
Key Moments in After Mr. Sam
The first part of the documentary shows a meeting in which senior executives discuss the company' s main concems. Mr. Sam had asked for an overview of company' s problems, and now the participants debate the priority of the issues identified in their early submitted reports. Each participant has his own convictions about the importance and/or the relevance of solving certain issues before others. Mr. Sam (see line 41 in the transcript in the appendix) and sorne senior executives want to establish first the company' s goals, so after they could see what kind of succession is needed. Yet other participants imply the necessity to design first a new structure for the company. As suggested, the underlying interests that could explain their various positions are, according to the voice-over: the opportunity to change the organizational structure, so the power of the president can be diminished in the advantage of the senior executives.
A great success on the part of the management committee, especially the non-family group, would be to decentralize the power before the new president will be nominated.
During their discussion, the participants' positions often correspond to their personal interest in the company. 39
From their dialogue, the viewer learns that Arnold Steinberg Oine 8; see
Appendix) defends the succession topic's priority, while Jack Levine Oine 51) sees the structure issue as a more central issue than succession and leadership. Jack's position is also shared by Mel Dobrin Oines 192-195), since he argues for determining the organizational structure, how they make decisions, and the functioning of the reporting relationships. John Paré Oines 61-62), like Mr. Sam, would tirst like to review the company's goals and objectives. To strengthen his position concerning the organizational structure issue, Jack Levine comments on a situation (lines 92-99, 117-
128) brought up by Mr. Sam to prove the communication problem that exists between the company's leadership and its divisions. He points to the ambiguity ofSam's position in the company with reference to these divisions, as he acts sometimes as a general manager, other times as a president. This arguably is the most intense moment in this particular meeting. Levine offers the strongest argument by emphasizing the need for a new structure and of new reporting relationships within the company. The meeting results in a list of topics that called for an extended discussion in a "three days top management conference at Palomino, the company's lodge" Oine 37).
The second part of the documentary shows the debates on the two most central issues: company structure and family organization (within a more general debate on
"professional management"). Chaired by Harry Suffrin Oine 214), the Palomino meetings begin with one important topic on the management's committee agenda and the most frequently invoked problem in the reports submitted to the president, which is
"the need to determine the senior management structure" Oines 231-232). Aithough Mr.
Sam will still have control over the company through his voting shares, these debates could result in the redistribution of his authority and operating control, and "this touches 40 the ambitions of almost everyone taking part in the conference" (lines 209-213).
Therefore, the discussion on structure is particularly interesting because at this point the viewer can clearly distinguish the participants' underlying interests as well as the participants' groupings according to these interests. Moreover, this debate over structure will show the participants' opposing positions which will bec orne more explicit when they approach the family organization issue.
This debate is directly related to the distribution of power at the president's and senior executive's level. The participants attempt to decentralize the power from the president and they seem to find a subtle way to achieve this. That is, the senior executives could win the power game by establishing a new structure able to guarantee them increased power and more influence on the future president. Thus, sorne of the senior executives propose different structures. Nevertheless, there are also participants who perceive these new structures as a threat to their actual position in the company or to their future careers (lines 279-281). Additionally, the viewer's attention is drawn to another key element, the favorites for the president position: "Arnold Steinberg, Sam
Steinberg's nephew, a Harvard Business School graduate and Vice-President
Administration; James Doyle, the corporation's widely respected Vice-President and
General Counsel; Mel Dobrin, the President's son-in-Iaw and Executive Vice-President
Retailing, currently in charge of the (Department Store) Division, and Jack Levine,
Vice-President of the Quebec Division, the corporation's largest, the most profitable retail division" (lines 252-260).
Within the professional management discussion sorne of the participants suggest a list ofbarriers to the professional managerial style they all want to implement at
Steinberg Ltd. One of the mentioned barri ers is the family organization issue, which 41
gradually becomes more and more important on the Palomino agenda. These barri ers do
not seem to be the main agenda item, but Irving (lines 597-610) brings up "the bunch of
stuff listed" (line 599). Thus, the participants have now the possibility to address clearly
defined issues that harm the professional management, including the family
organization. Moreover, from the previous meetings, but mostly the meeting in question, the viewer understands that the submitted reports were pointing (overtly or not) to the
family matter, and there is the feeling that someone will have to bring this up. Initiated
by Arnold Steinberg, the family organization issue covers the rest of the meeting episode
in question, while the rest of the barriers displayed on large sheets of paper seem to be
forgotten (Le., decision making, lack ofunderstanding of goals, inter-divisional
relationships, lack of coordination, family organization, and lack of skills in top
management). As indicated, Arnold Steinberg (line 766) addresses this delicate topic,
trying to clarify and respond to the previous ambiguous hints. None ofthe non-family
members had the courage so far to raise this question in a straightforward manner. Yet
James Doyle (line 645) had slightly mentioned the harmful effects of a family approach
to a business situation in response to Arnold's accusing an unprofitable investment.
Starting with Arnold's initiative (line 766), the conflictual nature of the
interaction becomes more prevalent; that is, a certain tension can be perceived. Thus, for
my study, this is the most indicative moment of the documentary. 1 therefore selected
this part of the meeting as the object of my analysis, presented in the next chapter. More
specificaIly, in the analysis chapter, 1 reproduced and analyzed this sequence (initiated
by Arnold, line 766), which continued until the end of the second part of the
documentary. Next, 1 will present the method 1 used for the analysis ofthis sequence. 42
Method: Conversation Analysis
To examine the conversational accomplishment of conflict management in the just discussed sequence and to see what actually happens in the data, 1 used conversation
analytic techniques in line with the theoretical framework described in chapter 3. Hence,
1 carefully observed the sequence 1 selected many times to investigate what the actors
are doing in the data, describing and analyzing their conversational interactions from an
organizational disputing perspective. Subsequently, 1 regularly checked my
interpretations with my advisor, Dr. Boris Brummans, through frequent conversations
and data analysis sessions. This process helped me get more confidence in my
interpretations.
To conduct micro analyses of interactions, CA researchers proposed transcription
conventions that transform recorded interactions into an easily analyzable format (see
esp. Jefferson, 1984). The meticulous transcription of the spoken language used in the
selected sequence allowed me to investigate the flow of the original interaction. As
stated, this transcript had already been produced prior to my study and was pub li shed in
Cooren's (2007) edited book. Hence, 1 used this transcript (see Appendix). Nonetheless,
for the sake of clarity, 1 will present the transcription conventions that were used to
create this transcript, and then discuss the CA method 1 used, following Pomerantz and
Fehr's (1997) guidelines.
Transcription Conventions
Gail Jefferson (1984) developed a transcription system that is widely used in CA
research. The transcription conventions he proposed (also condensed in a glossary by
Heritage, 1984) intend to reproduce spoken language as precisely as possible. That is, 43 they aIlow us to perceive characteristics of speech delivery (i.e. speed, pitch), intervals within and between utterances, overlapping utterances, etc. AIl these characteristics contribute to understanding the meaning of an utterance in an interaction, which is one necessary condition for conducting CA. Although the system proposed by Jefferson provides a large array of symbols to signify most of the characteristics of spoken language, 1 will only present the most commonly used ones here and especially the ones used in the transcription of the selected passage.
(0.0) When intervals in the stream of talk occur, they are timed in tenth of a
second and inserted within parentheses, either within an utterance or
between utterances.
> < When part of an utterance is delivered at a pace quicker than the
surrounding talk, it is indicated by being enclosed between "less than"
slgns.
When there is no interval between adjacent utterances, the second being
latched immediately to the tirst (without overlapping it), utterances are
linked together with equal signs.
(( )) Double parentheses are used to enclose a description of sorne unclear
phenomenon. These can be vocalizations that are not spelled gracefully or
recognizably, other details of the conversational scene, or various 44
characterizations of the talk. They also can indicate important nonverbal
aspects.
( ) Items enclosed within single parenthesis are in doubt. When single
parentheses are left empty, no hearing could be achieved for the string of
talk or item in question.
A colon indicates an extension of the sound or syllable it follows, and
more colons prolong the stretch.
hhh Audible aspiration (hhh) and inhalations (" hhh) are inserted in the speech
where they occur.
[ When overlapping utterances do not start simultaneously, the point at
which an ongoing utterance is joined by another is marked with a single
left-hand bracket, linking an ongoing with an overlapping utterance at the
point where overlap begins.
The point where overlapping utterances stop overlapping is marked with
a single right-hand bracket.
A degree sign is used to indicate a passage of talk which is quieter than
the surrounding talk. 45
iL Marked rising and falling shifts in intonation are indicated by upward and
downward pointing arrows immediately prior to the ri se or faIl.
Underlined text indicates the speaker is emphasizing or stressing the
speech (Heritage, 1984, p. 312).
(.) A dot in parentheses indicates a tiny 'gap' within or between utterances.
It is probably not more than one tenth of a second (Heritage, 1984, p.
312).
l will now explain the analytic techniques 1 used, following Pomerantz and
Febr's (1997) descriptions. Pomerantz and Febr recommend starting with the selection of"sequence[s] and to characterize the actions in the[se] sequence[s]" (p. 71). Then, it is important to consider how the speakers' "packaging" of actions, including their selections of reference terms, provides for certain understandings of the actions performed and the matters talked about. Subsequently, the analyst should consider the options for the recipient that are set up by this packaging. As a final step, Pomerantz and
Febr recommend examining how the timing and taking oftums provide for certain understandings of the actions and the matters talked about, as weIl as how the ways in which the actions were accompli shed implicate certain identities, roles and lor relationships for the interactants (see Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, pp. 71-74). These analytical steps permit the observation of an interaction by relying on the sequential organization of talk. In other words, the interactants understand utterances by considering them in relation to preceding talk and display their understanding through 46 tying their own utterances to previous ones. The proposed steps also consider the fact that the placement and participation of an utterance within sequences of action make possible for this utterance to accomplish particular actions. Therefore, they are very important factors that have to be considered during the analysis. 1 will now discuss these five steps in a more detailed manner.
Selecting a sequence. When watching or listening to a recorded interaction,
Pomerantz and Fehr argue that the analyst needs to identify a sequence in which
"whatever interests you occurs" (p. 71). In so doing, the analyst has to look for identifiable boundaries. For instance, the tum in which one of the actors initiated an action has to be located first. Then, to establish the end of the sequence, the analyst needs to see when participants no longer respond to the prior action or topic. Also, when observing the openings and closings of a sequence, analysts have to treat them as products of negotiation; that is, the start or finish usually is not fully accomplished without the ratification of the co-participant.
ln my case, 1 looked for conflictual interactions and in this way chose the sequence 1 mentioned in the previous section. Thus, the beginning of the sequence is delimited by Amold's tum (line 766), which initiates the discussion on family organization, while the end is marked by the adjoumment of the meeting overlapped with the forced termination of the topic.
Characterizing the actions in the sequence. Within this step, the analyst needs to focus on the actions in the sequence, since they are .central to the ways participants behave and understand behavior. As discussed in chapter 3, actions, the basic analytic units of conversational analysts, play actually a fundamental part in understanding the significance ofbehavior. For each tum of the analyzed sequence, Pomerantz and Fehr 47 recommend the characterization of the action(s) the interactant(s) performed. In addition, the analyst has to consider the relationship between these actions and the possibility for one action to imply multiple meanings. Most of the actions are performed with an expectation of a response and/or as a response to a prior action.
ln this study, 1 investigated each turn in the selected sequence, and highlighted what each participant did with his turn. For instance, with one turn oftalk, a speaker may perform the actions of denying a preceding assertion, state his or hers own position on that matter, and challenge the recipients to answer back to his position.
Considering how the speakers' packaging ofactions, including their selections of reference terms, providesfor certain understandings of the actions performed and the matters talked about. Considering the options for the recipient that are set up by that packaging. This third step entails considering the intended meaning as weIl as the possible multiple meanings of a discursively performed action. Further, Pomerantz and
Fehr recommend considering the options for the recipient that are set up by that packaging. By "packaging" they mean the ways in which speakers discursively form up and deliver actions. Thus, one particular action may offer multiple possibilities of packaging it. Conversation analysts consider that the speakers usually select the packages, formulations or formats they use. However, they agree that this selection usually is not made consciously; in a given context the speaker may not consider the options an analyst proposes as alternatives. Hence, for a given action Pomerantz and
Fehr (1997) indicate that the analyst should examine how the speaker formulated and delivered this action. Moreover, the analyst has to consider the understandings that are connected to the packaging that the speaker used in relation to alternatives that might have been used but were not on this occasion. In addition, he needs to observe the 48
options that the packaging the speaker used provided for the recipient. To identify the
packaging of a given action as weB as to understand its consequentiality, the analyst has
to notice the understanding displayed by the participants versus his or her own
understandings. Moreover, the references the recipients made based on that packaging
have to be appreciated. AIso, the analyst considers whether through these references the
recipients treated the matter as important, ordinary, wrong, etc. Observing the interaction
setting, the analyst can see the relevant circumstances that influence the selection of a
certain packaging for an action. Ethnomethodology offers again a suitable answer to
how interactants unconsciously "package" their actions. Among various options, people
choose specific formulations for their actions according to the context involved, the
recipients, and to how the y expect them to understand the se actions and respond to them.
AIl these intrinsic, on the spot, processes are derived from the commonsense knowledge
that people - the social actors - use to navigate the social world. As discussed in the
previous chapter, this is how "these constructs are the resources with which social actors
interpret their situations of action, grasp the intentions and motivations of others,
achieve intersubjective understandings and coordinated actions and, more generally
navigate the social world (Schutz, cited in Heritage, 1987, pp. 229-230).
While analyzing the selected sequence, 1 relied on commonsense knowledge to
interpret and analyze the characters' packaging of actions in their turns as weIl as the
possibilities for the subsequent turns.
Cons ide ring how the timing and taking ofturns provide for certain
understandings ofthe actions and the matters talked about. Pomerantz and Fehr
demonstrate how time and timing issues make a difference when examining tums of talk. Thus, analysts have to observe how the speakers obtained their tums in the 49 analyzed sequence. It is also important to observe the timing of the initiation of the tum, the ending of the turn, and whether the speaker selected the next speaker. Ali these elements highlight the speakers' understanding of the previous tums and the speaker' s response (expressed or deduced) to the options set up by "packagings" of action from the previous tums. This was a very important aspect in my analysis because the setting ofthis management meeting implied pre-determined tums oftalk as weil as the freedom to initiate tums and to respond to previous tums for each participant.
Considering how the ways the actions are accomplished implicate certain identities, roIes and/or relationshipsfor the interactants. In this phase of the analysis
Pomerantz and Fehr argue that it is important to identify rights, obligations and expectations of the parties in the analyzed discourse. Conversational analysts usually notice whether the ways the interactants talk and act are appropriated to a wide range of relationships, roles, and statuses, or ifthey implicate particular relationships and/or roles etc. Additionally, during the analysis, the researcher has to examine if the ways in which participants refer to persons or objects, package their actions, or take their tums, implicate particular identities, roi es and/or relationship between them.
In my case, the participants in the meeting mostly acted based on their official role or position in the company. Also, being a member of the family added to their institutionally defined status. These two mentioned roles and relationships imply certain rights, obligations and expectations that may be revealed during the analysis.
Also Heritage (2005) considered these aspects, presuming that institutional talk may involve certain tum-taking rules for interaction, a specific overall structural organization of the talk, specific sequence organization, tum design and interactants' specific lexical choices. 50
Concluding Remarks on the Method Used in this Study
1 followed the steps Pomerantz and Fehr (1997) described throughout my analysis when examining what do people do conversationally when managing organizational conflict and how people move back and forth between grievance and conflict. However, 1 did not explore ail possible interpretations of the turns in this selected sequence-this would have been unfeasible and, in fact, impossible. As stated, to achieve a sound and reasonable interpretation of the character's tums oftalk, 1 discussed my interpretations with my advisor. Furthermore, 1 collected additional information about the case. Thus, 1 enriched my analysis by reading previous works about the case (and particularly the issue of family organization; see Francis, 1986;
Hadekel & Gibbon, 1991), and by carefully observing other documentaries (Vincent &
Blandford, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c) that presented detailed, more recent background information about the Steinberg empire, as weIl as interviews with most of the main characters in After Mr. Sam.
Obviously, the study 1 conducted had certain limitations, especially ones that are inherent to using documentary data. 1 will discuss sorne ofthese limitations here already, and discuss others in the final chapter. Wieder et al. (2007) strongly object to the kind of approach 1 (and many of the authors in Cooren's [2007] edited book) took, suggesting that documentary data are no data proper. To prove their point, they mainly focus on the editing work used in After Mr. Sam, and the characters' awareness ofbeing filmed.
Heritage (1987) noted, similarly, "research procedures which result in the loss of detail or its contamination are to be avoided as far as possible" (p. 258). Deetz et al. (2007) make a similar point by arguing that "if we were to do a critical analysis of discourse in 51
Mr. Sam's organization, we would not likely have selected tbis text, and we would have asked much more about the context" (p. 226). According to these researchers, "[A]ll discourse is a social production/construction. It occurs in relation to a mass of other discourses, institutions, power relations, and so forth." (p. 226). Thus, they object to analyzing texts that are separated from their generating setting. That is, researchers should not analyze texts reconnected to new contexts, others than the ones that initially
"produced" these texts.
1 tried to address these limitations by examining additional information about the
Steinberg family, the company, the social and culturallife at that time. In this way, 1 tried to get a better understanding of the context of After Mr. Sam. Still, many features or facts shown in the selected interaction do not need a specifie context, since they are recurring social "facts" (e.g., nepotism). In addition, throughout the analyzed sequence, the logical and natural flows of verbal interaction - interlocked turns oftalk and tums within sequences of action - are properly shown, and follow a conversational "logic," thus showing basic CA features.
In spite ofthese limitations, there are two strong arguments infavor ofusing these data. First of al~ these kinds of data are very difficult to obtain, since few companies will allow a researcher to video record their strategie management meetings, especially in this day and age. Second, these data are unique in that they sho\y actual interactions between organizational members involved in a significant organizational conflict. Renee, they are particularly useful for the kind of study 1 intended to conduct. 52
Chapter 5
Analysis
This chapter presents the actual analysis whose techniques 1 described in the previous chapter. As explained, the analyzed sequence (lines 766 - 1027; see Appendix) is a part of the documentary's transcription that shows the "family organization" debate.
The second part of the documentary displays the emergence of this topic during one of the meetings at Palomino, nameIy, the meeting regarding "professionai management."
The selected excerpt shows the part of this meeting where this topic is finally addressed.
Hence, the open discussion on this topic reveals the conflictual nature of this interaction, since this is a very controversial issue, the source of many oppositions and alliances among the management committee members.
Before showing the analysis, 1 explain a few features of this interaction and how they affect the analysis. First, the analyzed passage forms a sequence of action in itself, considering how the family organization topic is initiated and no longer addressed in this interaction. However, 1 divided this excerpt by considering the interlocking turns oftalk or the larger structures created when these turns refer to certain aspects of the family organization topic. To improve the t10w of the analysis, the resulting fragments are followed by their corresponding observations according to the analysis method.
Second, this interaction concems an institutional, organizational context, which often implies certain rules for organizationai management meetings: tum-taking ruIes, structural organization of the talk, specifie lexical choices etc. Hence, since this interaction invoived many participants, the initial organizing of the meeting was based on allocated tums that meant to provide the meeting with an efficient, well-organized 53 structure, and to manage the attendants' participation in the meeting. However, the excerpt that follows barely shows Harry Suffrin's (chairman of the meeting) monitoring actions; it is rather a "free talk" in which participants take the floor to respond to previous tums of talk or to refer to previous tums according to their personal positions or interests. Because of this feature, in sorne cases it was difficult to observe whether a tum of talk is addressed to one particular individual or to the entire audience. Consequently, it was difficult to consider the recipient' s options that are set up by the previous tum of talk. For conflict situations, this loose targeting of one's tum oftalk plays a very important role.
Third, this analysis most carefully detailed the aspects related to the family organization topic, which is the main concem ofthis chapter. In so doing, the analysis showed people's conversational behaviors in view ofthe key issues discussed, revealing thus common or opposing goals, alliances or opposed groupings of the participants in the meeting. Accordingly, the analysis showed how participants conversationally enacted and managed conflict. The findings of this analysis helped to find answers to this study's research questions, which will be discussed in the final chapter. l will now tum to the analysis of the selected excerpt.
Alter Mr. Sam: The Dispute over Family Organization
Transcript (lines 766 - 1027)
766 ARNOLD S: Harry, l would like to de al with a barrier that has been talked
767 about and uh by many people. One which (.) l am, l guess
768 particularly sensitive to, that has to do with number t) family
769 organization. 54
770 (): (xxxx)
771 ARNOLD S: Uh uh 1 think there's implied in many ifnot (0.5) most of the
772 submissions that deal with professional management leadership,
773 > 1 think aIl ofthem pretty much do < C.) the idea that most or
774 a:Il of the members of the family C.) would prefer working in an
775 organization (.) where professional management takes a
776 secondary role C.) to nepotism or or or fam- or family
777 preference. (0.5) An' in this area 1 1 can obviously only speak
778 for myself(l.O) but 1 think l'm speaking for for most ifnot a:ll
779 of the second generation (.) family members when when 1 state
780 that that nep- that n-nepotism (0.2) generates sa-satisfaction to
781 any (.) particular individual for a very short period oftime. (0.8)
782 And that in the long run uh career satisfaction of an individual
783 (0.2) uh let me put it differently (.) that that when (.) nep-
784 nepotism plays an important role (.) in the choice (0.2) of an
785 individual for management (.) the satisfaction that cornes from
786 that is very short Iived to any partÎcular individual (.) who
787 thinks ofhimself(.) in a management capacity (.) and 1 think as
788 1 said 1 speak weIl 1 know 1 only speak for for myself (.) in fact 1
789 suspect that l'm voicing the opinion (.) of aIl ifnot most of the
790 members of the family.
Arnold introduces the family organization issue (766 - 790), trying to shed light on this matter. He addresses Harry, and then he proposes to deal with the previously 55 mentioned barrier: the family organization. He declares his sensitivity about this issue, and justifies his taking the floor by mentioning the reports that - at least most of them implied that family members would prefer to work in an organization where professional management takes a secondary role to nepotism. Arnold states that to a particular individu al nepotism generates satisfaction for a short period of time. AIso, he considers that he voices the opinion of most or all of the members of the family.
By taking the floor, Arnold displays his awareness regarding the unavoidable character ofthis delicate issue. The family organization debate was imminent for two reasons. First, the senior executives had already expressed their concerns regarding the ineffective family management in the reports submitted before the meeting. Second, the issue seems to be "in the air;" it is already written on the list ofbarriers and there is a tacitly expressed feeling that non-family members expect someone in the family group to address the issue.
By addressing Harry (chairman of the meeting) Arnold claims the legitimate floor. In so doing, he obtains everyone's attention. By admitting his "particular sensitivity" to this issue in his turn of talk, he shows that senior executives' reports might have referred as well to his position and his professional skills. This is a strong enough reason to address this problem. AIso, considering the information provided by the documentary, the fact that he was one of the favorites for Mr. Sam's succession could have contributed to his initiative. Having this problem openly debated and finally settled seems to be very important to Arnold's chances ofbecoming president or his other future position in the company. That is, this could ensure the pre conditions for a peaceful and well-defined relationship with the rest of the team and help to get rid of 56
these nepotism inferences. Thus, he now has the chance to state and advocate his
position on this matter.
Arnold makes his point by not mentioning directly that the people in the room
are the authors of those reports. His approach is rather impersonal and uncertain,
conveying his own perspective (771- 772), which might be not objective ("I think
there's implied in many ifnot most of the submissions" [771-772]).
At first, he do es not imply that each submitted report complained about the
family organization management. However, that would have lowered the chances too
much to trigger a reaction from those present. Thus, as he goes on, he is enlarging the
accused group ("I think aIl ofthem pretty much do" [773]) to elude the possibility that
one of the reports' authors is not considered, and to maximize the opportunity to obtain
feedback. His hesitation continues when referring to the idea implied by the reports, that
"most or a:Il of the members of the family" would prefer working in a company where
nepotism is predominant.
Arnold resumes his understanding of the reports, arguing that the y refer to "a:Il"
the family members involved in the organization. Hence, he seems to reinforce the idea
oftwo adversarial groups around the table by opposing "aIl" the reports that "pretty
much do [imply]" to "aIl" the family members who would prefer working in a nepotistic
organization. Arnold's foIlowing argument mainly focuses on responding to the
nepotism accusations from the reports; in so doing, he implicates his identity and
relationships in the family organization. Thus, he turns nepotism into an inconvenience,
suggesting - though lacking confidence - that he is "voicing the opinion of aIl if not
most of the members of the family." NormaIly, Arnold's intervention would require a
'1 reaction of acceptance or denial from the senior executives who submitted the reports. 57
Yet, by saying "when (.) nepotism plays an important role (.) in the choice (0.2) of an
individual (.) for management," Arnold seems to refer to Mr. Sam's decision,
interpellating him.
The way Arnold addresses the family organization issue displays the grievance
stage ofthis interaction. His taking the floor implies the pre-conflict stage, the first
volley in which Arnold reacts to real or perceived displeasing hints in the reports, a
violation of a set of customary norms. In his tum oftalk he shows his willingness to
discuss and reconcile grievances in a mutually acceptable way (conciliatory
negotiation). However, the audience may not display the same conciliatory behavior.
The conflict could surface and take a ditferent course now, as this is one of the delicate
topics not listed in first place on their agenda.
791 (1.0)
792 SAMS: hh now uh (0.8) uh the only comment 1 would like to make at
793 this mom- this moment was that 1 read a Harvard report (0.5)
794 where it deals with families in organizations=
795 (): =We ail read it. ((people interrupting and agreeing.))
796 SAMS: AIright! So it tells you that after a period oftwenty years there
797 is more family than ever before=and that hasn't atfected the the
798 performances as 1 read it in these companies. (1.0) On the>
799 other hand < (0.5) 1 think that when we look aroÙTId'.;the table
800 over here, we talk about family, (1.0) weil (.) 1 looked upon
801 Jack as a member of the family=I look up:on (.) Oscar as a
-, 802 member of the family (.) l've looked upon Jack Ginser always 58
803 as a member of the family (.) and 1 think that they look upon
804 themselves as a member offamily.
805 ((Four or/ive people talking at the same time.))
Although he never voices it explicitly, Mr. Sam appears to mark his disagreement. He takes the tum to make a comment, which will rationalize his disagreement: He states the favorable findings of a Harvard report on family organizations. Participants seem to respond to his argument, saying they also read that report. Additionally, Mr. Sam names sorne of the attendants and states that he always considered them as members ofthe family.
Mr. Sam's tum oftalk shows his willingness to set the matter straight as soon as possible. In this way the issue will not escalate or gain support among the participants in the meeting. He seems to want to prevent this, especially knowing their positions from the often-mentioned reports. Probably, he was prepared for this kind of discussion, because he seems to have a good argument, right on the spot, "a Harvard report." Mr.
Sam uses this report as a textual agent) that - strengthened by its academic nature- determines specifie, beneficial behaviors and methods of operation in the case of a family organization. Sorne of the attendants counter Mr. Sam's intervention by acknowledging they all read it (795). Thus, they seem to already know about this report, and now probably they expect other arguments ofMr. Sam against the nepotism matter.
Mr. Sam's replay do es not reckon that the information he offers might be redundant; he seems to be rather content that bis interlocutors know what he is talking about (" Alright
!" [796]) and continues with the report argument. The intervention is aimed to dilute, even eliminate, the subject. He treats the issue as an ordinary, even unimportant one, 59 since he only has "one comment" to make on tbis matter. As implied, he takes his tum of talk immediately after Arnold's tum, so that no one can have a chance to elaborate on this subject. Although Arnold has indirectly selected him as the next speaker, he could have ignored this. However, he responds by denying the existence of the nepotism problems and, in so doing, actually avoids further interaction on this subject. The first part ofhis second tum oftalk (796-798) is therefore meant to scientifically prove to the audience the non-sustainability of the family organization shortcomings, underlining the report' s conclusions ("as 1 read" [798]) that stand for the wortbiness of a family organization (796-797). The second part ofMr. Sam' s response (798-804) is meant to show the homogeneity of the management group, in case there were still any doubts that the family issue was not a problem. Specifically, Mr. Sam tries to convince the audience about the equality between members in the group, as for bim many of those present are part of the family, and he expects they "look upon themselves as a member offamily."
The participants react to Mr. Sam's discourse with confused and unorganized talking (805). A lot of people in the room feel the urge to talk, and this does not necessarily mean that they agree with Mr. Sam's policy regarding the family issue or his expectations that all the referred to members should look upon themselves as members of the family. Hence, Mr. Sam's presumably wise move does not seem to impress the group, and it is probably the non-family group that further creates opposition to Mr.
Sam's views (805-807). They see Mr. Sam having a "particular" definition offamily, and contest the appropriateness of his example (806).
From a disputing perspective, Mr. Sam's tum oftalk displays an authoritative attitude that he uses to covertly discipline bis "offenders." That is, he indirectly shows what behavior he expects from bis subordinates, specifically bis expectations that 60 everyone should share his views. MT. Sam's response to Arnold's volley blocks the dispute' s unfolding by temporarily preventing the family issue from being addressed by the non-family group.
806 (): That' s not a very good example.
807 (): Your definition offamily and everyone else's xxx
808 SAM S: l'm not will you please listen to me? l'm just giving you by way
809 of example because (.) he started right at the very beginning
810 with us.
811 (1.5)
812 ((people talking at once.))
Unidentifiable participants contest Mr. Sam's understandings of the family issue, as implied by Arnold. In response, Mr. Sam takes the tum oftalk, asking the participants' attention. He explains that, to him, sorne senior executives are like the members of the family because they were with the company since the beginning. In response to Mr. Sam's previous tum, sorne participants try to take the floor, talking simultaneously.
In this tum oftalk (808), it's obvious that it is not easy for Mr. Sam to maintain his previous position. So far, he has tried to level the tensions, to deny the existence of familyand non-family groups, and so of the oppositions between the management committee members. At this point, he may have to admit that his example is not convincing, not everybody sees organization as famill, and bis definition of the term
"family" is different than the one used by the majority in the room. To explain his 61 previous attitude conceming the equality between members in the group, Mr. Sam needs to ask for his tum at speech. Although he can barely make himself heard, as implied, he explains that sorne of the participants have been with the company from the very beginning, and therefore, they are viewed as members offamily.
After this brief intervention (808-810), Mr. Sam takes a short pause, allowing the disagreeing voices to be heard. Thus, participants seem to control the interaction and the topics discussed. At this moment, the tensions could be brought to the surface with the possibility to name feelings, opinions, and expectations according to each person's interest. From a disputing perspective, the fact that the participants further elaborate on this subject shows that they do not agree with Mr. Sam's position and, thus, they exchange grievances with the family group. For instance, with the expression, "your definition of family," they display their opposed positions and their direct criticism of
Mr. Sam's behavior. The group's unorganized tums oftalk convey participants' overt noncooperation (lines 805-807,812). In 50 doing, they appear to "force" Mr. Sam to properly address the family organization and the nepotism issue.
Accordingly, Mr. Sam needs to reconcile quickly; he probably cannot afford to have things, indeed, 100 "freely spoken"---even though he often encourages this.
Although he fully controls the company, and his decisions may or may not take the meeting's suggestions or conclusions into account, he has to assure the democratic
3 debate , and the feeling that each person in the room can contribute to the changes to come. Thus, because it is too late and because the issue can no longer be ignored, the way out seems to be to change the perspective, to reframe the issue:
813 SAM S: But (.) now let's go to the next step (.) let's take where people (.) 62
814 let's say (.) blood blood relations=
815 ( ): =That' s better=
816 SAM S: =No? We'll go the next step regardless the next step, blood
817 relations. (0.5) Wherever the m:an (1.0) could not measure up
818 or we had somebody more competent in job (0.2) the person
819 that was most competent got it but to s:ay (.) .hh that ifa
820 member of the family who's in the firm who has the competence
821 an' he can't be considered because he is a member of the family
822 is wrong.
823 ((people denying they implied that.))
In this turn oftalk, Mr. Sam proposes to move onto the next step, to talk: more precisely, thus referring to "blood relations." One of the attendants agrees with his proposai and encourages approaching the issue from this more focused perspective. Mr.
Sam explains how competency criteria prevail when choosing the right person for ajob.
He corrects the group's previous inferences, which - in his opinion - suggested that a competent member of the family cannot be considered for a job, because he is part of the family.
Mr. Sam seems to address the family organization issue from a different perspective. He seems to acknowledge that he and the participants in the meeting use two different interpretations of the term "family". Thus, Mr. Sam has previously used this term to refer to a larger group of people, which he considered as members of family because oftheir strong relations with the company and the family. With regard to tbis frrst interpretation, Mr. Sam seems to have used the term "family" in what could be 63 called a "strategically ambiguous" way, that is, aiming to control what he shares of his private opinions, believes or feelings (see Einsenberg, 1984). Therefore, in his tum at speech (813) Mr. Sam skilfu]]y shows he controls the discussion's topics, proposing the second meaning of the term which addresses the problem from a new perspective, by redefining the meaning of"family" in this interaction. His attitude shows that the new way to address the family issue has not been imposed on him by the discontentment in the room but, on the contrary, this is his commonsense reaction to this discontentment
(805-807,812).
Through the new "blood relations" approach, Mr. Sam demonstrates that he now adheres to the interlocutors' desired perspective, which creates two opposing parties in the meeting: family and non-family members. The new perspective regards the family
"as it is," biologically speaking. The feedback obtained (815) shows that this second approach responds to the group's needs regarding the debate - this is their point. Bence, he withdraws elegantly from the attempt to dilute the problem by making the family concept ambiguous in this interaction. By stating that the nominations for various positions in the company are made according to the competence of the people considered, Mr. Sam again minimizes the importance of"blood relations," and indirectly implies that participants' discontent concerns the professional skills of the people he nominates (817-819).
To summarize, Mr. Sam draws a very smart conclusion, which requires a clear pro or against positioning of the participants on this matter. Thus, he implies (819-822) that the non-family group asks him not to nominate a family member to a position in the company even though that person has the competence for the job. In this way, he shows 64 that the idealformula supported by the non-family group (non-family professional management) will be a "wrong" one from his point ofview.
The family members would be disadvantaged ifMr. Sam operated with this nomination criteria, despite the benefit that this would end ail rumors about nepotism.
Therefore, at this point the non-family group is in the position where they can still imply that there is nepotism in the company, and the family members involved in the management are not necessarily competent, or deny they implied that (which they do).
Put differently, Mr. Sam says very cIearly that only competence is the key to fulfilling an organizational position. For this reason, continuing on the nepotism matter would mean directly opposing Mr. Sam and, consequently, sharply opposing the most powerful person in the organization.
In this tum oftalk, it is obvious that, at this point, parties directly exchange grievances. Sorne of the attendants intensify the grievance exchange by rejecting Mr.
Sam's inaccurate understanding oftheir family organization grievances. Subsequently, when referring to "blood relations," Mr. Sam finally seems to address the participants' grievances, manifesting conciliatory negotiation behavior. Yet, Mr. Sam avoids properly addressing these grievances and directly criticizes his opponents, thus achieving a temporary de-escalation of the conflict. Specifically, he has vigorously qualified the previous behaviors, which seems to suggest that a competent family member should not be considered for a job, as "wrong." For these reasons, the next tum oftalk is problematic. The next speaker will have the great responsibility to continue on this topic while being "under" this appreciation ofMr. Sam.
824 IRVING L: Weil 1 tell you, 1 just wanna comment a little on this because uh 65
~ 825 (0.2) l've had a lot ofuh people uh come to me and talk to me
826 about this bec- may be because:e you know l'm a little younger
827 and only joined the company .hh uh sorne eleven years ago and
828 uh went through all this and in my case obviously it was no
829 great deterrent for me .. hh but uh let me just say this, that uh
830 there is an awareness (0.5) in the co- in many of the people in
831 the company that uh there is such a thing as an informal
832 organization at Steinberg's (0.8) which is directly linked to the
833 family (.) and there's an informai organization perhaps in every
834 company but this one happens to be directly linked to the family
835 .hh to the point wh:ere (.) there uh there (.) ifyou're sitting
836 among a group ofpeers (0.5) that the fact th', and l'm gonna
837 level here and tell you that the standard joke is (.) that the key
838 decisions are not made at the management committee (.) or with
839 the President (.) but at Friday night supper (1.0) and this in itself
840 is very indicative because l'm sure you've ail heard the same e
841 expressions used (0.2) and it's very indicative (.) as to how
842 people see the organization an' how they read it. They don't see
843 (.) equ:ality~ if one fella happens to be Vice-President ofthis
844 and another fella Vice-President ofthat and they're both putting
845 forth their opinions, if one happens to be related (.) the feeling
846 is (.) that he's got an awfullot more to say (.) a) because he is
847 much closer, b) it's sort ofhis money involved and, c:) it's
848 because (.) he goes to the Friday night supper as opposed to the 66
849 other party (.) and 1 tbink that tbis (.) is the feeling among a lot
850 of the people (.) in the organization. They feel it definitively
851 has hampered in the past (.) and 1 might add (.) that uh perhaps
852 from my own point ofview anyways is probably is less so now
853 than it has been (0.5) and it's been very severe in the past (.) in
854 my oplruon.
855 (2.0)
856 IRVING L: And 1 can tell you there's a lot of people they spend a lot of
857 time talking about this stuff(0.2) a lot oftime. And so 1 tbink
858 we have to recognize it and be aware of it.
859 (4.0)
To prevent the possibility ofthis topic's termination, Irving voluntarily takes the floor, knowing probably that he is one ofMr. Sam's favorites4 and thus using this advantage. He proposes his comments on this issue, explaining how he found out about people's awareness about an informai organization at Steinberg's, directly linked to the family. Irving therefore takes the turn, continuing on tbis subject, and proposing a new perspective, the one belonging to the rest of the people in the company, beyond the management level. He explains that his approachability, the fact that he is "a litt le younger, and only joined the company sorne eleven years ago" and the nonexistence of a
"great deterrent" for him, allow him a better knowledge on this matter resulting from his interactions with the people in the company (824-829). In fact, he associates himself with a lot of people from the company to increase the power ofhis argument. This could undermine Mr. Sam's power, since his legitimate power lies in the company itself and 67 therefore in its people. This aspect ofrelocating power was questioned by Latour (1986) who argued that power is transferred to the many resources (social elements) used to strengthen the social bounds. Specifically, "those who are powerful are not those who
'hold' the power in principle, but those who practically define or redefine what 'holds' everyone together" (Latour, 1986, p. 273); that is, in this case, those who obey Mr. Sam.
Irving's tum oftalk is a courageous step, because there are not too many people who would take the floor on the same subject after the categorical point ofview ofMr.
Sam. Irving seems to have the status of a man who is in-between the groups, fIfSt because ofhis Jewish ethnicity, which creates a sort of alliance with the family group, and second, because he is not a member of the family, which situates him on the other side among the non-family group5. Thus, in order to maintain and even develop the nepotism issue6 at this point of the meeting, he appears to takes advantage of the uniqueness ofhis position and of the faet that he seem to be one ofMr. Sam's favorites.
The great advantage ofhis intervention resides in the power ofhis argument, making it more difficult to deny or ignore that nepotism is a reality which exists regardless of their willingness to acknowledge and discuss it in this meeting. Speaking in the clear, Irving wisely shows how the differences between two people with equal positions in the company are regarded when one ofthem happens to be a family member. He conveys the perception of the other people in the company and how "they don't see equality" in this situation, while strategically using this outsider's point of view. With this plea, Irving wishes to convince the audience and proposes the wise and mature approach of facing the problem as this may be a better solution than ignoring it.
He situates the origins ofthis topic somewhere outside the meeting room and frames it as a "we against the problem" situation, reducing the tensions. In addition, he reinforces 68 the gravity of this problem by stating the persistence of the discussions on this topic
(856-858). Irving's intervention normally demands that the next tum oftalk expresses a certain position in this view, brings complementary information about this matter, and so on. This time, the next tum of talk is a difficult task; no one seems to have something to add or the courage to stand for the validity or invalidity of this claim. The silence, taking a considerable amount oftime (859), shows this frozen moment when no one is willing or able to talk. Their personal interests May never be accomplished if one directly agrees or disagrees with Irving' s statement, knowing that this subject bothers Mr. Sam. This is probably the reason why those who showed the anti-nepotism position in their reports do not want to oppose Mr. Sam, although they now have stronger arguments.
With his tum, Irving shows overt noncooperation, thereby confronting Mr.
Sam' s previous position by further addressing the nepotism topic. In addition, he shows a conciliatory negotiation attitude that can also be shared by the rest of the non-family group. In so doing, he achieves a repositioning of the interaction, back to grievance exchange stage, and more oriented to negotiation and mutually acceptable grievance reconciliation. Mr. Sam's previous tum oftalk could have meant a forceful, unilateral termination of the topic, as Morrill and King Thomas (1992) suggested when showing how conflict may de-escalate back to grievance if one party decides to end the argument.
However, the power oflrving's argument calls for further discussion.
860 SAM S: Ijust wanna make (.) Ijust wanna ask you one question=ls it
861 your charm or ability got you where you are now? That' s ail 1
862 want to know. ((laughing.))=
863 ((people speaking at once.)) 69
864 (): =Good looks ...
- 865 ((Laughter.))
866 MEL D: No, he attended the Friday night dinner.
867 ((Everybody laughing.))
Mr. Sam takes the floor and asks lIving if he got bis position because ofhis .
charm or his ability. He also adds that it is ail he wants to know. In response, sorne
participants are laugbing, while others try to comment Mr. Sam' s intervention, even
though none ofthem speaks in the clear. Mel Dobrin takes the floor and emphasizes the
irony that Irving attended the Friday night dinner, probably relying on the fact that ail
participants know tbis is not true.
Following the silence produced by Irving's previous argument, Mr. Sam's turn of
talk attempts to unfreeze the discussion. Changing the subject and joking in tbis delicate
context show his ability to manage the interaction as he pleases. This intervention saves
the appearances of a friendly and relaxed meeting, and creates a connection to the
previous subject by giving a disguised answer to the nepotism question: "Is it your
charm or ability got you where you are now?" (860-861).
Hence, Mr. Sam successfully shows there is no relation between a good position
in the company, like in Irving's case, and the "blood relations" so often mentioned, as he
is not a member of the family. In so doing, he reassures his management committee. He
juxtaposes the reasons of "charm" to those of "ability" in order to diminish and mock the
earlier inference concerning the prevalence of family preference reasons over those of
competence. In line with this, someone mentions that "=Good looks ... " (864)
increasing thus the amusing effect oftbis way of approaching the nepotism topic. 70
Moreover, Mel Dobrin - another member of the family - sides with Mr. Sam and adds (
the expression "Friday night dinner" (866) to the easy-going, newly emerging approach,
suggesting that Irving obtained his position due to bis close relations with the Steinberg
family, specifically, by attending the traditional Jewish supper.
The tensions now seem lessened and tbis may diminish the importance of the
previous intervention. Now, they ail seem to enjoy the joke about it - but what real
choice do they have? The family group may be willing to end tbis topic here, because
the dominating feeling is that the problem is not serious. So they can move on. From a
disputing point ofview, this may be a good example ofhow organizational members
deal with conflict indirectly and informally. Joking about an expressed grievance
actually can imply a questioning of its validity. As observed, in this tum, Mr. Sam again
avoids dealing properly and directly with this grievance. In so doing, he de-escalates the
conflict to a grievance stage, and prevents it from further escalating. To achieve tbis, he
asks Irving a facetious question: "Is it your charm or ability got you where you are
now?" He responds therefore to nepotism accusations (Irving is a rising star of the
company and still not a family member) and also tums their debate into a trivial,
unnecessary interaction. He also displays a behavior of avoidance and detachment by
saying: "That's ail 1 want to know" (861 -862). In so doing, he appears to show that he is
not expecting further comments on this; just Irving's answer to the question. The
attendant s' murmurs (863) show that the matter has still not been properly resolved; the
non-family group's grievances are still not considered in a way that satisfies them. The
timing between Irving's and Mr. Sam's tums oftalk - there is a considerable moment of
silence (4.0 seconds) - shows that in bis intervention Irving made bis point. In tum, Mr.
Sam's 'late' response seems to be one of bis repeated attempts to end tbis topic. 71
The next tum of talk reactivates the business meeting setting preceding Mr.
Sam's tum (860), and re-contextualizes the delicate issue. James Doyle, representing the non-family group, takes the floor and adds more information to Irving's statement:
868 JAMES D: No yeah but to to support everything that Irving is saying uh
869 there is also and 1 think Irving could, might calI in on this (.)
870 there's a sort ofuh (0.5) another:r feeling around (0.5) that (0.5)
871 a a certain amount of this has (.) definitely been taken care of in
872 a much better way in recent years with the appointment of other
873 non-family people to very senior positions. But running along
874 with that wh-whether we like to admit it or not there's a there's
875 one school of thought going around which sort of looks as us a
876 little bit like the Negroes in a cabinet (0.5) you know (.) that
877 really we're we're there more for show ((starting to laugh)) than
878 for performance. And that the real decisions are still made as
879 Irving says in the in the Friday night eh meetings whether that' s
880 (0.5) has validity or not, that's what they believe=
881 SAM S: =(xxxx) 1 don't think 1 need to answer that but certain you were
882 never put on for show.
883 (1.2)
Thus, the non-family group continues to express their grievances. James Doyle's tum of talk continues Irving' s argument. He states that he wants to support everything
Irving is saying, and adds that with the appointment of other non-family members to 72
very senior positions, this nepotism problem is less pronounced lately. He also
complains that people in the company consider that these non-family members in senior
positions don't really have an influence on the way the organization operates, and that
decisions are made during the Sabbath dinner. Specitically, James Doyle valorizes his tum at speech admitting in the tirst part ofhis intervention (870-873) that the company
solved sorne of its nepotism problems "with the appointment of other non-family people
to very senior positions". He boldly says "another:r feeling around" (870) introducing
his assertion commented above - which constitutes positive feedback for the
management committee, especially for Mr. Sam's recent policy. Doing this, James
Doyle seems to defend Mr. Sam's earlier dec1aration that competence prevails over
family relations when he chooses the suitable people for certain positions in the
company. Yet, in the second part of the intervention he talks about "one school of
thought going around," which questions their decisional power and ascribes them the image of sorne "Negros in a cabinet," victims of the "Friday night" meetings.
Joining his intervention to Irving's, James Doyle amplifies the importance ofthis problem and shows that this has to be acknowledged and addressed. Doyle seems to use the same strategy as Irving, situating the "enemy" outside while maintaining a neutral position with regard to these so called schools ofthought ("whether that's (0.5) has validity or not, that's what they believe=" [879-880]). Just as in the preceding sequence, this tums out to be an easy way to bring up the delicate subject of nepotism and family organization that Mr. Sam repeatedly tried to dampen. This time again, Mr. Sam takes the floor interrupting James Doyle with the observation that he does not need to answer, which may infer that he does not bother to answer to a certain school ofthought, a non existent or at least invisible participant in their meeting, thus taking away the effect of 73 their wise strategy mentioned above. In so doing, Mr. Sam reaffirms his power and shows that the rumors in the company have no meaning to him and influence on his policy. Trying to respond to James Doyle's grievances regarding the formality of the senior executive's positions Mr. Sam reassures the non-family group by suggesting that these grievances are not founded, and that they "were never put on for show" (881-882).
Through this tum of talk, and through the way he expresses this state of mind,
Doyle reformulates the group's grievances. Moreover, he displays the same conciliatory negotiation attitude as Irving, a certain willingness to negotiate, to reconcile grievances through further debates on this matter.
884 MORRIS S: Nepotism can actually exist (.) not only in family but when a:
885 General Manager in his own division can have nepotism in his
886 ((one person speaking at the same time)) own family. So
887 nepotism does not only exist in a in a uh family.
888 (0.5)
889 ARNOLD S: The whole question ofnepotism (.) in my opinion is not really
890 (.) coming out on the table. (0.5) ln this sense from what 1
891 gather and and it' s may be not right for me to to bring it up uh
892 (.) uh but (.) throughout the reports (0.8) throughout the reports
893 (0.2) there is (0.2) if not (0.2) written certainly between the
894 lines (1.0) there is the the the uh obvious statement (.) that this
895 company h:as been ruled (.) and is suffering (0.8) badly (.) as a
896 result of nepotism. And frankly 1 have a feeling that if a vote
897 was taken (1.0) by the people here more people would vote in- 74
898 in to the correctness of that statement than to the wrongness of
899 that statement.
900 ((Several people talking at once.))
Morris Steinberg takes the floor and acknowledges that nepotism can actually exist. He declares that nepotism phenomena can appear at different levels in the company and may not refer to only one family. Arnold takes the next turn of talk and claims that aH previous discussions do not address the nepotism aspects implied in the reports. He reiterates the inferences in the reports according to which the company suffers because of the nepotism. He also considers that if the participants would be asked to vote (and thus not openly discuss this) they will still maintain their nepotism claims.
Specifically, Morris Steinberg wears out the nepotism question, or tries to expand the initial meaning by exemplifying other situations in the company that can be qualified as nepotism and that have no connection to the family top management (884-888). His intervention could answer to both non-family members speaking before, Irving Ludmer respectively James Doyle by showing additional causes for the nepotism rumors that seem to exist in the company. With bis intervention, new attributes of the nepotism are brought into play, involving new considerations regarding definition, occurrence, and unavoidability. Morris' point ofview does not invite further observations, but Arnold uses this opportunity to continue on the same subject. He goes back to the reports, refreshing the discussion as though nothing that has been said so far responds to his expectations when he first brought up the issue (766).
For Arnold, "the whole question ofnepotism [ ... ] is not really (.) coming out on the table". He may have expected to have sorne feedback from the reports' authors with 75 regard to the nepotism issue, as he implied when proposing this subject. Thus, he insistently returns to the source ofhis investigation ("throughout the reports (0.8) throughout the reports" [892]), narrowing the discussion topic and mobilizing the submitters to further explanations regarding the very observations expressed in the reports (892-896). In the second sequence ofhis unsecure and burdened intervention
(894-899), Arnold considers that the people in the room would point to the nepotism problem only if"a vote was taken", suggesting that no one would openly talk about this. ln so doing, he indirectly criticizes senior executives' behaviors. Several people talk at once (900), probably showing opposition to Amold's suggestion that they are cowards.
With this statement, Arnold adds more pressure on the authors of the reports, so that they will finally talk about it openly and clearly express their grievances about the family organization barrier. Hence, he directly criticizes their previous behaviors ofnot directly and properly addressing this barrier. By taking the floor, he minimizes Morris' previous turn and refreshes the disputing aspect of the interaction, probably hoping productive outcomes and the reconciliation of the se grievances.
The effect obtained is that most of the people in the room seem to have something to say about this. Among them, Jack Levine finally takes the floor, answering
Arnold expectations:
901 JACK L: (xxxx) 1 think (xxxx) you're pushing, 1 guess y:ou're u:h you're
902 rightly so. 1 think what uh sorne of us said in our report was that
903 (.) u::h it's inconceivable that a decision of succession (.) u:h
904 would not been u:h 'cos size of our company, would not have
905 been made that decision before now if it wasn't for the dilemma 76
906 (0.5) of the family.
Thus, in his turn oftalk, Jack Levine agrees with Arnold's pushing. He indirectly defends his position expressed in the report, and accordingly he admits implying that the succession problem is postponed because of the family dilemma. Thus, Jack Levine has correctly perceived Arnold's continuous reference to the reports as an invitation for the submitters to assume their words. Because Arnold is a member of the family, and one of the favorites for Mr. Sam's succession, Jack Levine gives him the right to push it (901-
902). He might also have inferred that Arnold is right to ask the senior executives to explain better what they meant in their reports. By positioning his turn in response to
Arnold's turn, Jack Levine shows he wants to deal personally with Amold's hints. Thus, it is obvious that his humming turn oftalk is caused by the nepotism observations written in the report he submitted. Therefore, he probably needs to clarify his position as written in the report. He uses the same impersonal and doubtful structures ("1 think what uh some of us said in our report" [902]), which allow him not to speak explicitly about himself - and yet to explain his position - as weIl as to reduce the pressure on the other pers ons from the non-family group. He implies that in his report he meant that such a big company would not postpone the election of the new president on a normal basis. He seems to blame the "family dilemma" for this putting off. In fact, it will be obvious toward the end of the film that Jack Levine7 is the one calling for an effective and quick decision; he would not be content with Mr. Sam' s uncertain position concerning the succession. With this turn, Jack responds to Arnold's volley, and indirectly expresses his grievances, keeping the debate in this rather peaceful grievance exchange state. To achieve this, he takes a conciliatory negotiation position; he avoids addressing directly 77 delicate issues or his opponents, decreasing thus the chances of conflict's escalation. Put otherwise, Levine and other participants in this interaction use doubtful, loose targeted and impersonal structures in their interventions, thus exemplifying how organizational members find various informai ways to approach and deal with conflict situations.
907 SAM S: Y ou're talkin' about how would you say eh (3.0) 1 had the word
908 on the tip ofmy tongues when you say franchise but this (1.0)
909 u:h (.) l'Il say is this=1'1I put it simpler "Does this rule out (0.5)
910 ((pointing to Amold)) Arnold because he's a member of the
911 [family?"
912 (): [No ((several people speaking)) no, no.
913 SAM S: Weil, of course l've got to make sure that 1 understand that
914 clearly, he's a member of the [family.
915 (): [We're coming to that (xxxx)
916 We're coming to that.
917 ((people still talking at the same lime.))
918 JACK L: What are you asking? Come on. What is he asking?
919 (): l' m not sure.
920 JACK L: 1 don't know what he is asking?
921 (): Are you are you doing something underhand?
922 (): Our boss is doing something (xxxx)
923 (): 1 don't know, 1 mean.
924 SAM S: Let me finish please (0.5) let me finish.
925 HARRY S: Satisfied?= 78
926 SAM S: =Now if the man can't be considered for the job because he' s a
927 member of the family we better know the ground mies right at
928 the beginning.
929 ((people talking, some laughing.))
Jack Levine's tum oftalk indirectly selected Mr. Sam as the next speaker, by mentioning the succession dilemma, which directly concems Mr. Sam. Thus, Mr. Sam takes the floor and resumes his understanding ofwhat Jack has just said, and asks if, for instance, Arnold8 cannot be considered for succession because he is a member of the family. Several people disagree with Mr. Sam's deduction (912). Mr. Sam declares that he has to make sure he understands dearly Jack's position. Confused, Jack Levine asks
Mr. Sam and the audience in repeated tums to better explain the question. Unorganized tums oftalk (919 - 923) contribute to creating a more confused interaction. Mr. Sam politely asks to continue his tum of talk when many participants try to take the floor. He continues his intervention, stating that he needs to know the "ground mies" from the beginning, that is, whether members of the family can not be considered for succession.
More explicitly, it seems that Mr. Sam takes the tum using the same strategy as before to keep the spirits down. In this controversial exchange, he seems to push the participants to say whether family members are not to be considered for succession, probably knowing that none ofthem will make this kind of daim (909-912, 913-914 and
926-928). Mr. Sam makes it look like it is only a matter of competence whether or not a person can be nominated for a position. In bis view ail the family members participating in mnning the company are competent. He implies that the group' s remaining question concems whether or not the candidate is part of the family: "if the man can't be 79 considered for the job because he' s a member ofthe family we better know the ground mies right at the beginning" (926-928). In this intervention, Mr. Sam not only asks whether Arnold should not be considered because he is a member of the family, but a1so he shows the need to level the participants' principles based on which they discuss and will discuss future changes in the company. At a first level ofinterpretation, he needs cIear premises from the beginning, "the ground mies" of their discussion, but, in fact, he seems to try to impose his owns mies on his subordinates (913-914), probably knowing that no one will confront him. Hence, Mr. Sam may expect their approval for a future competent president, who a1so may be a member of the family. Therefore, certain ofhis power, he seems surprisingly open to any suggestion concerning the "ground mies." He
puts his authority aside to appear an equal partner at the "negotiation table, Il and he seems to be willing to consider whatever proposaIs the management committee put forwards.
Mr. Sam's intervention on this issue generates again reactions from a lot of participants (912, 917, 929) because most oftheir interests and expectations connect to this. With the example he gives (909-911), Mr. Sam may suggest a picture of the future to sorne of his interlocutors. This hint or preview, which considers Arnold the future president of the company, is the cause ofvarious excited suppositions, even hilarious reactions ofthose present (912,915-923). Among these, Jack Levine's tums oftalk
(918,920) express his confusion, while other unidentified interventions suppose Mr.
Sam's example is intended to trick ortrap, namely he seems to be doing something
"underhand" (921, 922).
In this intervention, Mr. Sam avoids a direct approach of expressed grievances.
Moreover, he appears to use his power to further marginalize the non-family group's 80 positions (also shown by Black, 1990), by forcing them to accept or oppose bis understandings about applicable succession criteria. Although very subtly enacted, tbis may be qualified as a covert discipline behavior (Morrill & King Thomas, 1992) - which presumes covert punishment of a subordinate offender with reference to an explicit standard of conduct. In tbis case, these standards of conduct represent Mr. Sam' s clear, yet unspoken expectations of compliance from bis subordinates. Simultaneously, by repeatedly interrupting Mr. Sam's intervention, unidentified participants do not seem to respond to Mr. Sam's "disciplining" (overt noncooperation). Now, they seem to freely express their grievances because no one has yet spoken in the clear. At this point, conflict could sharpen or escalate into a dispute but, wisely using bis authority, Mr. Sam de-escalates this grievance exchange. Participants also contribute to tbis by not opposing him directly.
930 JOHN P: That the idea of a professional manager and the [idea of (xxxx)
931 ARNOLD S: [1 don't think
932 one would define nep-nepotism as saying that even wh:ere a
933 member of the family (.) is sup:erior (LO) uh uh or or the lack
934 of nepotism l should say where (.) l don't think the lack of
935 nepotism means or the non-existence of nepotism uh impl:ies
936 that even where a member of the family (.) is suitable (.) eh or is
937 the most suitable candidate for the job (.) that it's not available
938 to him=
939 JOHN P: =Well if! understood Mr. Sam right, he was saying that uh all
940 things being equal (.) the member of the family would get the 81
941 the job. (1.0) 1 don't see thafs (0.5) ((someone speaking at the
942 same time)) 1 mean ifs almost like uh seniority=
By taking the turn, Arnold disagrees with the previously suggested definition of nepotism and shows his own conception. In bis view, the lack of nepotism does not necessarily mean that a competent fami1y member should not be considered for a position in the company. His opinion is.shared by John Paré who continues his . interrupted turn oftalk to explain his understanding ofMr. Sam's previous tum.
Specifically, Arnold's tum oftalk reveals the family's strategy ofredefining the terms, searching for new meanings, or reinforcing the existent ones. Like Morris earlier, who spoke about nepotism and the variety of situations in which one can talk about nepotism, Arnold tries to clarify the meaning, so they can approach the issue from a common perspective. As implied, he does not tbink that "the non-existence of nepotism uh impl:ies that even where a member of the family (.) is suitable (.) eh or is the most suitable candidate for the job (.) that [the position] ifs not available to him=". Put otherwise, in bis view the most suitable candidate should get the job, even if it is a family member, and this cannot be considered nepotism.
The rea1 question in tbis struggle about nepotism is whether or not the objective selection criteria ofbeing or not being a member of the family should be considered first when nominating someone to a position in the company. The condition ofbelonging to the family is an unequivocal one, as opposed to the competence condition, where the person's abilities can bear various appreciations.
ln response to Arnold's ideas about nepotism, John Paré takes the floor, confusedly reflecting on Mr. Sam's earlier position, and wrapping up his understandings 82 on this matter (939-942). The overlapping conversations (941-942) do not allow for a clear understanding ofhis point ofview. By declaring his views on nepotism, Arnoia openly shows he is a legitimate candidate for succession. In so doing, he negotiates his understanding of nepotism and indirectiy invites the participams IO pronounce IÎ1eir eventual discontent, their potential grievances.
943 JACK L: =1 think that the company in a position (0.2) uhh that (O.L.)
944 cautiously (0.2) must make a decisions (0.2) that uh (0.2) >
945 everything being equal < the family member won't get it (.)
946 ((people talking at the same time)) for the nineteen (xxxx). l
947 think it would be better for (.) the company.
948 (): That's reverse (prejudice)?
949 (): That' s right=
950 (): =Umhum=
951 JACK L: =No (.) it isn't. ((People still talking at the same time.))
This subsequent tum oftalk constitutes an answer back to Arnoid's position.
Thus, Jack Levine disagrees, enouncing his opinion on how to make the ideal choice when family is involved. Thus, he suggests that when one carefully needs IO maiœ a decision in the best interest ofthe company, family members should not be privileged.
There are participants (probably family members) that express their disagreemem claiming that this is a prejudice toward family members. Jack Levine answers back by denying this, thereby causing indistinct reactions (951). Specifically, in his tum, Jack
Levine proposes a different way to differentiate among two people equaliy competem 83
for ajob, which is opposed to Amold's. That is, to make the choice in the disadvantage ( of the family member for the good of the company (943-947). The argument regarding
the company' s best interest is mentioned again, and tbis is maybe the most courageous
remark yet with regard to nepotism. Jack Levine, probably due to his seniority, seems to
be the only one so far who has openly pied for a non-family management, and that is
something that goes along very weil with bis personal interests. In so doing, he increases
the chances for his own succession or for other non-family participants with proven
managerial skills. Because someone translates tbis as a prejudice toward the family
members (948), Levine de ni es these eventual consequences, maybe under the argument
that the company's well-being is intimately connected to the family's.
This uncommonly open position generates various overlapping opinions (946,
951). Again, this may be a breaking point in the meeting; grievances are directly
expressed and conflict may escalate if people would discuss as open as Jack Levine.
Negotiating his own views on nepotism, he suggests that family members should not be
privileged when choosing among equally competent candidates for a job. In so doing,
Jack actually opposes Mr. Sam. Additionally, with his tum oftalk he informally
counsels his superior. Stated differently, he advises Mr. Sam about how he can retum his
behavior to sorne acceptable standard by choosing a non-family successor for company' s
best interests.
952 SAM S: Listen (.) foremost in my mind there's al:ways been (0.5) the
953 person's ability to cope with his job (0.2) at the point when he
954 was no longer able to measure up to that job (.) he was replaced
955 and that'Il go ail the years that we've been in business. Doesn't 84
956 matter wh:at that relationship (.) happened to be. (0.2) Now,
957 however it's viewed (0.5) from the outside (1.0) as long as l am
958 in the job in any case (0.8) family will always be given
959 consideration but always (.) subject to the person's ability to
960 discharge that responsibility.
Mf. Sam takes the floor; he declares that he always first considers a person' s competence for a job. He acknowledges that this may be viewed differently from the outside and declares that, as long as he runs the company, the family members will be considered. Mr. Sam first addresses his interlocutors by demanding them to "Listen (.)"
(952), implying the importance ofhis following words, and reconfirming his power, linguistically speaking, as he redirects the attention back on him. He asserts that, without exception ("al:ways" [952]), those who participated in running the company were chosen according to "the person's ability to cope with his job", denying the favoritism.
Moreover, he suggests that they occupied the position as long as they proved their competence (952-956) and "no matter what the relation happened to be" they were replaced when they were no longer able to cope with the job. His statement is strong enough to prove that competence prevails over nepotism.
The previous interventions ofIrving's and Doyle's have developed a certain awareness regarding the nepotism matter, emphasizing the prevalence of this phenomenon, especially in the pasto More courageous, Jack Levine' s position requires
Mr. Sam's intervention, which aims to counter tbis state ofmind, completely denying the nepotism, even for the past ("that'll go all the years that we've been in business"
[955]). Next, Mr. Sam moves the blame of the subjective judgment to the opposed group 85
("however is viewed from the outside" [957]), and speaks bis intentions loudly and c1early; that is, to keep considering the family in his choices regarding the company, under the conditions of competence (957-960). In so doing, he reiterates his rules according to wbich "family will al ways be given consideration but a1ways (.) subject to the person's ability to discharge that responsibility." The double use of the word
"always" (958-960) is meant to convey Mr. Sam's impartiality. Besides, he instates this reality of impartiality for "as long as" he is in the job, showing that there is no negotiation possible over this point.
With this tum oftalk Mr. Sam shows that he does not take the risk to have more contradictory opinions on this topic. Had this happened, his future actions might have seemed dictatorial or at least going against the management's committee suggestions and expectations. As mentioned before, he seems to have the difficuIt task of having the committee actively and effectively involved in this process, while bis old ways are still in place. So, under these circumstances bis tum oftalk stands for the competence's primacy whenever there is the case to make a choice for a position in the company. In this turn, by reinstating bis power through bis non-negotiable position for as long as he is in the job, Mr. Sam both de-escalates the grievance exchange and prevents further escalation. Therefore, his tum oftalk overtly shows noncooperation to Jack Levine's previous suggestion. Moreover, he seems to address improperly the non-family group's grievances (avoidance) by not acknowledging that family members are not a1ways the best solution to efficiently run the company.
Provided this non-negotiable position ofMr. Sam, the topic regarding the nomination criteria can hardly be further explored. This might be a good moment to 86 switch to a different topic, in a sphere oflower tension, but still the non-family group has not ended the attacks:
961 JOHN P: We (.) brushed over the Friday nights=
962 ((Several people laughing.)) Ha ha ha!
963 JOHN P: =l'd like to be in a position to say with conviction not (0.5)
964 the organ- (0.2) Certainly the family discusses business
965 when they get together (.) but the decisions are
966 [made in the management committee.
967 SAM S: [xxx We don't discuss business at Friday night.
968 JOHN P: WeIl you don't, l'm surpri[sed. ((Noise ofpeople talking.))
969 SAM S: [Vou couldn't hear yourselftalk with
970 my grandchildren there.
971 ((Noise of some people laughing.))
John Paré takes the next turn and indirectly expresses rus doubts that the decisions are not made during the Friday night supper (963-966). He suggests that the management committee needs reassurance that the decisions are made during their meetings. Mr. Sam denies discussing business at Friday night supper (967). He substantiates that (969 - 970) by mentioning the noisy environment produced by his grandchildren. Mr. Sam's turn is discontinued by John Paré (968), who expresses his surprise with view to Mr. Sam's previous deniaI.
This surprisingly confident and rather litigious attitude of John Paré corners Mr.
Sam, and brings the Friday night suppe? topic into the discussion again. The peak of 87
Paré's confrontation ofMr. Sam resides in directly questioning the validity ofhis claim regarding the discussions at Friday's suppers (967-968). Contrary to what Paré is probably expecting, Mr. Sam denies these business discussions outside the management committee. To strengthen his denial, Mr. Sam responds to his interlocutor's reasoning
("certainly the family discusses business when they get together" [964, 965]) by explaining the inappropriate conditions for conducting such discussion ("you couldn't hear yourself talk with my grandchildren there" [969-970]). The overlapping conversations and the laughter (962, 968, 971) show that, at this point, participants can hardly speak in the clear. Thus, trivial or controversial, the family organization topic no longer allows for an organized running of the meeting. This moment of the meeting clearly shows that participants openly express their grievances and address them directly to the offender. Thus, confronting Mr. Sam more straightforwardly, the non-family group displays direct criticism ofhis policy. In tum, Mr. Sam takes a less aggressive position and responds with denial, aiming to reassure his management committee by implying that organizational decisions are made during their management meetings.
972 JAMES D: 1 think Friday night is a sort ofuh (0.8) ((everyone speaking at
973 once))=a family get-together. And 1 tbink that the=
974 SAM S: =The family hasn't met in years.
James Doyle tries to take the floor and share bis opinion about Friday night supper. Mr.
Sam interrupts him, stating that "the family hasn't met in years." Probably, James
Doyle's intentions are to consolidate the non-family group's position, but bis attempt has no chance to succeed: Mr. Sam bits the very origins ofthis issue by denying the family 88 reunions. In so doing, he probably hopes to continue dissolving the speculations about
Friday night supper.
975 MEL D: 1 think first of ail the President if he wants to but uh 1 think ifs
976 up to him to say who meets on Friday night (l.2) because
977 there's a- [there's a- there's a feeling
978 JAMESD: [I think 1 think (xxxx)
979 MEL D: No, there's a statement that uh the ((he starts to smile)) mana-
980 management members here might think that fifteen members of
981 the family meet. (0.8) l've been the only one there=
982 JAMES D: =Twelve ofwbich [are children.
983 MEL D: [Is that correct. l've l've never seen Arnold
984 there, l've never seen Nathan there, l've never seen Morris
985 there in the last five years (.) so
986 ((people responding.))
987 MEL D: 1 don't know what they think (xxxx)
988 ((people still talking at the same lime.))
lO Mel Dobrin , Mr. Sam's son in law, intervenes to explain the reality of the
Friday night supper, aithough bis tum oftalk is successively cut by James Doyle (978,
982) who attempts to continue his previous tum. Mel assumes that is Mr. Sam's will to disclose who participates in these Friday meetings (975-977). Mr. Sam appears to ignore this subtle invitation. Probably because Mr. Sam did not seem to express any opposition to disclosing these family details, Mel continues his intervention saying "who meets on 89
Friday night" (979-981, 983-985). The arguments comprised in this turn oftalk may be persuasive enough to end the debate. Mel assumes that sorne members of the management believe that "fifteen members of the family meet" (980-981). Hence, he tries to reinforce the family position while coping with these accusations. Therefore, he clears the mystery by mentioning that he was the only one attending these Friday suppers, and that, in the last fiveyears, he has never seen Arnold, Nathan, or Morris there.
The unorganized and overlapping talking makes it difficult to distinguish participants' displayed opinions. Overall, joining Mr. Sam's statement: "the family hasn't met in years", Mel's tum oftalk aims to respond to the previous attack of the non family group (Jack Levine, James Doyle, John Paré). With this response, the family group negotiates a better position and displays an absolving but conciliatory attitude, meant to elucidate the non-family group's unfounded assumptions about Friday night supper, and implicitly, about family organization.
989 SAM S: 1 don't even need to have a family get-together.
990 (1.0)
991 ( ): This is true.
992 SAM S: One man (1.0) my own person have a hundred percent control
993 ofthis company. 1 don't have to ask anybody so ifs no use even
994 talkin' about a discussion the the there's no need for a
995 discussion. (1.0) Uh (1.0) 1 don't need anybody's approval=
996 (): =No, right! 90
Taking the floor, Mr. Sam reminds everyone that he does not need a family get
1 together i . In so doing, he categorically rejects aIl the insinuations made so far. He brings up his strongest argument, trying to reconfirm his power: he has total control over the company. In two briefly interposed turns oftalk, participants acknowledge this de facto reality. In this way, he shows the meaningless of the previous discussion conceming the need for "a family get-together."
Now, the power becomes asymmetrically distributed by Mr. Sam's daim that he has unlimited rights regarding the company. Nobody can disdaim the validity ofthis argument and sorne participants openly acknowledge his complete authority (991, 996) after one briefmoment of silence (990) that conveys the influence ofMr. Sam's categorical position.
At this point, the audience could appreciate that these meetings at Paiomino are reallyan act of good will on the part ofMr. Sam, since he could have decided everything by himself, without consulting his management committee. On these grounds, aH the previous inferences with regard to his family-oriented policy may be perceived as an offence to the president, whose democratic managerial approach was dearly proven by allowing these free debates. However, this could also reinforce the speculations about the formaI character of these meetings, considering the unlimited decisional power oi
Mr. Sam.
By reconfirming his power, Mr. Sam puts down the accusations about nepotism and family organization. Moreover, with his turn he covertly disciplines the panicipants' accusatory positions, imposing himself on his audience. In so doing he reduces the non family group's grievance expression, achieving a temporary de-escalation oftne conflict. 91
997 JAMES D: No one is, no one is is denying to you the prerogative of saying
998 here 1 have two or three or four or five however many people
999 you have, might have in mind as an ultimate (0.5) successor (.)
1000 but you're gonna be the person who is is gonna make that
1001 decision. First ifit weren't for any other reason is because on
1002 strictly legal grounds, as you just pointed out, you wouidn 't
1003 have to ask anybody else (.) even on a straight iegal ground you
1004 could say "To heU with ya," ifyou felt so inc1ined, "1'11 make
1005 that decision personally" and everybody here knows that ..hh
1006 But you being the kind ofperson (.) you a:re (0.5) 1 think are
1007 unlikely to make that decision of, a decision of that magnitude
1008 without referring (.) to the family. (1.0) But the fact is, ifyou're
1009 willing to accord then (.) because of the (.) fami1y ties, the
1010 matter of discussion on a rational basis (.) with the family (.) we
1011 think that it should be done (.) on a rational basis also with your
1012 senior executives.
1013 (0.2)
1014SAM S: That's why you're here tonight=
James Doyle takes the floor to explain his position. First, he acknowledges that, legaUy, Mr. Sam has the absolute power and the right to make alone the succession decision (997-1003). Then, he informs Mr. Sam that no one denies his rights, but "being 92 the kind ofperson" Mr. Sam is ("you a:re" [1006]), he thinks that it is unlikely for Mr.
Sam to make "a decision ofthat magnitude without referring to the fami1y:;·
James Doy1e's approach very convincingly combines the objective arguments mentioned so far with the subjective aspects supposedly intermingled in the management process. He suggested that Mr. Sam's succession decision will be made with reference to the family because of the kind ofperson Mr. Sam ;SI2. Consequently, this could undermine aIl the previous pleas which were standing for Mr. Sam's impartiality and objectivity in his management. Thus, the grievances expressed by the non-famHy group so far regain their validity. James Doyle speaks for the group, presenting a logical conclusion (1008-1012). That is, ifMr. Sam is willing to discuss "on a rational basis" the succession problem with the family because of the "family ties", then he should do this "on a rational basis also with his senior executives" (previously, they were aU considered members of the family). This deduction is based on the premise that Mr. Sam is a certain kind ofperson. This implied particularity ofMr. Sam's personality is very subjective in nature. Yet, this becomes a very strong and undeniable argumentbythe way James Doyle mentions it (1006).
Conveying a conciliatory negotiation approach, James Doyle's turn oftalk counters Mr. Sam's previous turn. Therefore, his intervention may reactivate the dîrect or indirect exchange of grievances.
In his next tum, Mr. Sam does not challenge these remarks; on the contrary, he briefly suggests he accepts them. He offers an explicit and indicative answer to lames
Doyle's demand to discuss the succession problem also with his senior executives:
"that's why you're here tonight=" (1014). Thus, Mr. Sam responds to these grievances by reassuring James Doyle and, implicitly, the management committee. His tum oftalk 93 shows that their previous discussions as weil as the upcoming ones constitute the enactment ofhis impartial management style. Therefore, Mr. Sam allows participants to envisage future significant contributions in the debates over succession. Hence, he gives the non-family group the necessary reasons to reduce grievance expression and, thus, he temporarily suppresses conflict.
1015HARRY S: =Well eh Jim that's in view of the eh (0.5) we agree to adjoum
1016 at nine > 1 don't think there's much sense in starting the next
10 17 item on the agenda, which is succession < (.) With a your
1018 agreement, 1 suggest we adj oum (.) here and now gives us a
1019 good night's rest.
1020( ): (xxxx) finish it off in ten minutes.
1021 ((Laughter and people talking.))
1022HARRY S: Huh?
1023( ): 1 think we'll ail sleep on it.
1024HARRY S: Alright, we'll ail sleep on it. (0.5) ((Somebody starts to speak.))
1025 (1.0)
1026HARRY S: Alright the (.) meeting is adjourned 'til tomOITOW moming at (.)
1027 nine o'clock when we'll discuss succession.
Asking for the participants' agreement, Harry Suffrin adjoums the meeting until the next moming, recommending themall "to sleep on if' (1015-1016, 1026). He mentions there is not enough time left to discuss the next item on the agenda, the succession. The management committee members prepare to leave the room, rising and 94 gathering their papers. One of the participants states that they will all "sleep on if'
(1023). In the next turn, Harry agrees (1024), and then officially adjoums the meeting until the next moming.
These final turns oftalk delineate the end of the excerpt and, accordingly, the end of the sequence comprising the family organization topic. Often blocking their arguments, Mr. Sam di mini shed the participants' determination to further address this topic until reaching clear, outspoken conclusions and eventual solutions to their grievances.
To conclude, throughout this analysis, 1 have explored the conflictual side ofthis interaction, taking a disputing perspective. To achieve this, 1 inierpreted and analyzed the participants' conversational behaviors by evaluating their positions in this interaction and how they actually enacted and managed conflict. In addition, 1 observed how participants' conversational behaviors influenced the conflict dynamics and the conflict stages implied by the disputing perspective. While conducting this data analysis, 1 aiso considered the findings of Morrill and King Thomas' (1992) study; that is, 1 sought to identify the conflict management behaviors they proposed through their Disputing
Process Instrument. In so doing, 1 recognized the enactment of sorne of these behaviors, but also determined other ones. 1 will discuss this in more depth in the next and final chapter. 95
Chapter 6
Discussion
ln this chapter, 1 will revisit and further interpret the outcomes of the analysis 1 presented in the previous chapter. Thereby, 1 will provide answer to my research questions and show this study's implications. After this, 1 will discuss the limitations of this study and suggest directions for future research.
Research Questions and Implications of tbis Study
EM, and especially CA, allowed me to investigate everyday organizational talk and, more particularly, organizational members' interactions in this management meeting. To resume, CA mainly presumes that interactions are structurally organized and that speaker's contributions to an interaction are context-shaped and context renewing. Moreover, participants make specific discursive choices to convey the intended meaning oftheir utterances and thus to conduct intelligible interactions.
Additionally, according to ethnomethodological principles, speakers reiy on commonsense knowledge, indexicality, reflexivity, practices of commonsense reasoning, and so on, to produce and manage everyday activities and to make sense oftheir social world. In the same manner organizational members make their utterances meaningful to the listener or follow shared practices to conduct their daily interactions, in this case, to hold this meeting. Following the se assumptions and insights allowed for a better understanding of the disputing process and for a detailed observation ofhow conflict 96 management behaviors are conversationally enacted by participants in a management meeting.
The first research question stated: What do members ofan organization do, conversational/y speaking, to manage conflict in a particular organizational conrext?
To answer this question, 1 tried to observe participants' communicative behaviors and, more importantly, to identify conflict management behaviors embedded in participants' tums oftalk. To achieve this, 1 considered the conflict management behaviors proposed by Morrill and King Thomas' (1992) Disputing Process Instrument. Simultaneously, 1 identified other specific behaviors that participants manifested throughout the seiected interaction. The DPI comprises seven conflict management behaviors: avoidance, conciliatory negotiation, covert retaliation, discipline, overt retaliation, thirà-parry mobilization and toleration. My analysis showed that onlytwo ofthese conflict management behaviors appeared in the management meeting. That is, the panicipants managed conflict by manifesting the DPI behaviors of (1) avoidance (lines 791-805,
813-823, 860-867, 907-929, 952-960), and (2) conciliatory negotiation (lines 766-790,
813-823,824-859,868-880,901-906,975-988,977-1014). In other words, aggrieved participants unilaterally curtailed all or sorne social interaction with their offender and, aggrieved participants showed willingness to discuss and reconcile grievances in a mutually acceptable way.
Few of the conflict management behaviors identified throughout the analysis did not exactly match the definitions of the seven behaviors provided by the DPI. ln mm, they illustrated definitions of conflict management behaviors previously addressed by
Morrill and King Thomas (1992) during the refmement ofthis conflict instrument.
Accordingly, 1 used the same labeling when outlining these behaviors, based on this 97 study's communicative approach to the study of conflict. For the sake ofbrevity, 1 win only mention where these behaviors occurred in the transcript. Tnus, participants aiso manifested (3) overt noncooperation (lines 806-812, 824-859,907-929,952-960), thal is, they intentionally and publicly failed to perform behaviors expected oÎ them ln response to their offender's behaviors. Furthermore, sorne aggrieved participants manifested (4) direct criticism (Hnes 806-812, 813-823, 889-900, 961-9ïlj conveyed through direct, verbal attacks against the offender and (5) covert discipline (Hnes: 791-
805,907-929,989-996) conveyed through unilateral punishment of offenâing subordinates with reference to a set of explicit conduct standards. Finally, sorne aggrieved participants enacted (6) informai counseling (lines 943-951), that is, they advised their offender how he could retum his behavior to sorne acceptable standard.
The remaining conflict management behaviors equally show what actions participants performed with their tums oftalk. Nevertheless, these acdons do nOI seem to convey conflict management behaviors previously reviewed in this study.
Specifically, the analysis shows denial behaviors. For instance, these were obvious when
Mr. Sam repeatedly denied the accusations against him. In sorne cases, denial behaviors led to avoiding further addressing a certain topic, thus implying a con:flict managemeni behavior already discussed (avoidance). However, there were utterances when deniai seemed to convey (7) reassuring behaviors. This is a behavior Mr. Sam repeatedly manifested toward his opponents (lines 860-867, 881-883,961-971,997-1014). Tnis can be considered a distinct conflict management behavior. Moreover, my analysis showed that people managed conflict through (8) joking about expressed grievances (rines 860-
867). 98
Additionally, sorne moments of the interaction indicated how participants performed differently specific actions which were implied by previously identified conflict management behaviors. Consequently, these are also considered distinct conflict management behaviors; namely, aggrieved participants manifested (9) negotiation behaviors (lines 930-942, 943-951) when Arnold and Jack were clearly trying to come in terms about the meaning of the word "nepotism," and (10) indirect criticism behaviors
(889-900), a more subtle enactment of the previously identified direct criticism.
These ten communicative behaviors show what the meeting participants did, conversationally speaking, to manage conflict in this particular interaction. Next, by answering RQ2 and RQ3, 1 will show how these behaviors influenced the disputing process, moving back and forth between grievance and conflict. These remaining research questions aimed to understand how people conversationally de-escalate confiict to a grievances stage (RQ2), and how people conversationally prevent a grievance from becoming a confiict or a dispute (RQ3).
From this study's perspective, the interactions clearly showed how partièipants conversationally de-escalated conflict to a grievance stage by manifesting various conflict management behaviors. In addition, the analysis showed how participants used their conversational skills to express their grievances and yet kept a relatively low lever of conflict. For instance, participants' overt noncooperation and direct criticism behaviors moved the interactions to a grievance exchange stage (lines 806-812). Mr.
Sam's intervention de-escalated this grievance exchange with turns oftalk conveying a conciliatory negotiation behavior (lines 813-823). Furthermore, his power allowed him to avoid directly addressing these grievances and even to directly criticize his subordinates' behaviors. In so doing, Mr. Sam succeeded a temporary de-escalation of 99 the conflict, although his intervention could have meant a forceful, unilateral termination of the topic (Morrill & King Thomas, 1992).
A second temporary de-escalation of the conflict was achieved when participants
- and particularly Mr. Sam - responded to Irving's aggrieved tum oftalk (lines 824-859 J with avoidance behaviors, and by trivializing the subject, and joking about the expressed grievances (lines 860-867). This moment of the interaction bore a second Interpretation since not only conflict was de-escalated to a grievance stage, but it was prevented from escalating to a dispute. This escalation could have been possible if the famiiygroup had interpreted these expressed grievances as an offence.
Furthermore, the interaction' s grievance exchange stage - grounded in participants' overt noncooperation behaviors (lines 907- 929) - was de-escalated by Mr.
Sam's avoidance to directly approach their grievances and by covertly disciplining his subordinates. Here, to de-escalate conflict, Mr. Sam made use ofhis existing positionai power, knowing that his opponents would not confront him. Consequently, by not directly opposing Mr. Sam, participants actually prevented grievance exchange from escalating.
The de-escalation of conflict was also illustrated when Mr. Sam, by reaffirming his power (lines 952-960), avoided properly addressing his subordinates' straightforwardly expressed grievances (lines 943-951). To achieve this, he also overtly displayed non-cooperation toward his subordinates. This moment also showed how the conflictual interaction could have escalated to a dispute. Furthermore, the grievance exchange stage of the interaction was again de-escalated when Mf. Sam responded to his subordinates' direct criticism behaviors (lines 961-971, 974) with deniaI. In so doing, he reassured his management committee. Finally, Mr. Sam de-escalated conflict in a more 100 authoritative manner at one point in the meeting (lines 989-995). That is, by reaffirming his power, he covertly disciplined his subordinates and thus achieved a temporary de escalation of the conflict.
These moments of the de-escalation of conflict to a grievance stage illustrate how participants exactly achieved this. Hence, through ana1yzing this particular interaction, this study shows that Mr. Sam cut in almost every time the grievance exchange was about to escalate. Therefore, he conversationally de-escalated conflict by manifesting various conflict management behaviors: conciliatory negotiation, avoidance, direct criticism, joking, covert discipline, overt noncooperation or reassurance. In so doing, Mr. Sam seemed to be the only person influential enough to control this interaction or, more specifically, bis subordinates' behaviors. Another observation resulting from this study is that Mr. Sam often used his power and his authority to maintain a low leve1 of conflict during this meeting. To achieve this, his mos! frequent conflict management behaviors were avoidance, direct criticism, and covert discipline - which, obviously, became ways to express his power.
Finally, how do people conversationa//y prevent a grievance /rom becoming a conjlict, or a dispute? As implied, in this meeting, participants more often avoided directly confronting their opponent and straightforwardly addressing delicate issues. In so doing, they maintained a low leve1 of conflict and prevented grievance exchanges from becoming a dispute. Their turns of talk thus usually conveyed conciliatory behaviors, oriented toward grievance settlement, thereby preventing grievances from escalating. For instance, Arnold's expressed grievances (lines 766-790) were answered by Mr. Sam's avoidance and covert discipline behaviors, preventing them - at least temporarily - from becoming a conflict, or a dispute. Thus, he actually blocked the 101
volley, keeping the interaction in a pre-conflict stage. A second example of maintaining
the pre-conflict stage occurred when James Doyle's expressed grievances were not
answered by Mr. Sam Oines 977-1014). In this case, Mr. Sam prevented grievances from
escalating to conflict by reassuring his management committee. From this study's
perspective, in this way grievance expression was reduced, and conflict was temporarily
suppressed.
Hence, participants more often prevented grievance expressions from turning
into a dispute. Through repeated tums, participants conversationally achieved this by
displaying conciliatory negotiation behaviors when expressing their grievances or by
indirectly presenting these grievances (lines 824-859, 868-880, 884-906). Other different
moments of the interaction showed how participants prevented conflict from escalating.
For instance, Mel's tum oftalk (975-988) conveyed conciliatory negotiation behavior,
used to respond to previously expressed grievances (by Jack Levine, James Doyle, and
John Paré). Mr. Sam prevented further escalation by reassuring his subordinates. In the
same line of thought, a different moment of the interaction showed how participants
managed to avoid the conflict from further escalating by not directly opposing Mr. Sam
and by acknowledging his power (lines 907-929). As suggested, this moment showed
how conflict was prevented from becoming a dispute, and additionally, how conflict was
de-escalated to a grievance stage. At this point in the interaction, participants'
submissive behaviors were induced by Mr. Sam's authority expressed through
avoidance, overt noncooperation and covert discipline behaviors.
To summarize, this study showed that the people in this meeting prevented
grievances from escalating to conflict by manifesting avoidance, covert discipline or
" reassurance behaviors. Additionally, participants often succeeded in keeping conflict 102 from escalating to a dispute by indirectly expressing grievances and by manifesting conciliatory negotiation behaviors.
To conc1ude, 1 will recapitulate the findings of this study and address its implications. According to Morrill and King Thomas' (1992) disputing perspective, the conflict features of an intéraction emerge from opponents' continuous grievance exchange. In the analyzed meeting, participants mainly exchangecl grievances in very subtle and indirect ways or suppressed them to minimize the possibilities of open conflict. Consequently, most of the indentified behaviors illustrated how organizational members informally managed conflict. Put otherwise, the observed behaviors reinforce
Kolb and Putnam's (1992) opinion that "showing the various forms of dispute processing, it becomes possible to observe the other forms of conflict management that are less obvious and public" (p. Il ). In this way, this analysis confirmed that informaI ways of dealing with conflict occur more often than formaI and deliberate ways, and thus are part of everyday organizational activities and organizing processes.
One ofthis study's implications is that the identified conflict management behaviors do not exactly match the definitions proposed by the Disputing Process
Instrument, except for avoidance and conciliatory negotiation. For instance, two identified behaviors - covert discipline and direct criticism - only partially match the definitions ofthe DPI behaviors of discipline, and respective1y, overt retaliation. These two DPI behaviors, Iike aIl behaviors constituting this conflict illstrument, contain several secondary but c1early described conflict management behaviors, as is the case of covert discipline and direct criticism. Therefore, since the analysis indicated actions of interactants corresponding to these more specific behaviors described by Morrill and
King Thomas (1992), 1 considered these behaviors separately. Hopefully, this 103 contributed to providing a more complete picture of how conflict is enacted and managed in organizational settings.
More importantly, this study illustrates that a micro-analytic approach is needed to observe a diversity of conflict management behaviors. Thesefindîngs are corroborated by Kolb and Putnam (1992), in that they previewed the existence of multiple conflict management behaviors. Specifically, they suggested that usually the basic forms of conflict management presuppose "multiple tracks that are pursued depending on who is involved, how the social drama is orchestrated, and the form dispute resolution takes" (p. Il ).
In the same line of thought, by taking a disputing perspective to analyze these data, 1 was able to see the dynamic features ofthis interaction and, more particularly, how specific coriflict management behaviors influence the disputing process, moving back and forth between grievance and conflict. Therefore, this study's findings showed that the escalation and de-escalation of conflict is a communicative process that builds up within minutes and thus is part ofthe fabric of the organizing process. Moreover, this dynamic process seems to be connected with certain conflict management behaviors and context variables, such as power. As shown, Mr. Sam often reduced grievance expression or prevented escalation through specific conversational behaviors. Therefore, he seemed to control the interaction. This was directly related to his power and status of being the most powerful man in the company. This may be a strategy, but the analysis could not reveal ifthese interventions were planned or enacted on the spot. Nevertheless, other aspects could have been taken into account, in this regard, such as Mr. Sam' s communicative skills that enabled him to put this supposed strategy into action in a 104 natural way - i.e., conveying it through tums oftalk in organized, naturally occurring sequences of action.
Additionally, the analysis revealed that to influence the dispute's dynamic, the aggrieved participants seemed to combine two conflict management behaviors. For instance, they simultaneously manifested less aggressive conflict management behaviors, such as conciliatory negotiation, with more explicit confrontational behaviors
(overt noncooperation) in one tum oftalk. In so doing, they maintained a certain balance in the interaction, conveying their position of neutrality and still making their point and expressing their grievances. Obviously, 1 was able to outline these processes only by taking a disputing perspective to analyze these data. As shown, this perspective enhances the analytic possibilities when investigating daily conflictive interactions in organizations.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Inevitably, this study was limited in several ways. As mentioned, using a documentary as research data can often be problematic. Therefore, a first limitation of this study derives from the nature of the data that were used. Specifically, the analysis of this management meeting was limited to a certain extent by the difficulty to observe how the originating context actually influenced this taped interaction. Moreover, the usual editing work of such productions and, in this case, the actor's awareness ofbeing filmed, contravene to conducting such an investigation. On these grounds, sorne researchers objected to using documentary data to study organizational interactions, especially when taking a micro-analytic perspective (Deetz et al., 2007; Heritage, 1987; Wieder et al.,
2007). Put otherwise, they argued that researchers should avoid analyzing data that are 105 separated from their generating context, and the research procedures that result in contamination of the data or in the 10ss of detail. In this study, to accurately interpret these interactions and to conduct a more precise analysis 1 used information acquired through detailed research about the case. That is, 1 provided relevant insights during the analysis, which 1 considered to be "constitutive" elements of the context and which, in my opinion, could have contributed to the way this interaction evolved. Additionally, by carefully examining this specific excerpt, 1 observed that it hardly proved editing work.
That is, the characters' interaction c1early displayed features of naturally occurring, structurally organized language, which are the primordial requirements when conducting a conversation analytic study. Nevertheless, this study has not completely overcome this limitation. Certainly, there are other elements that could have influenced the interaction, in addition to the information provided by this study and by the context shown in the documentary itself. Therefore, future studies need to analyze more authentic and more recent organizational interactions which allow for exhaustive, in-depth analyses.
A second limitation concemed the micro perspective employed to analyze these data. Consequently, this study failed to consider alllarger societal elements that could have influenced this interaction. Therefore, to analyze various conflictual interactions in organizations, future studies could take a different perspective that allows for a better observation of macro contextual elements and how they influence these interactions.
Finally, this study was limited because it did not specifically look at nonverbal communication in the meeting. Therefore, future research could also address this limitation since After Mr. Sam allows an in-depth analysis of its actors' non-verbal actions. Moreover, for a more comprehensive look at this case, future studies could 106 provide more detailed information about the characters in this documentary or about the immediate context when these data were produced.
In the same line ofthought, to complement this study's disputing perspective on organizational conflict, future research could look at other management meetings and observe conflict's dynamics over a longer period oftime. In so doing, they cou1d advance the studies presented in Kolb and Bartunek's (1992) edited book, Hidden
Conjlict in Organizations. Accordingly, future studies could reveal more informaI ways ofmanaging organizational conflict by following Kolb and Putnam's (1992) dialectical view on organizational conflict, that is, by analyzing the tensions between organizational conflict's dualities (Public/private, formaVinformal, and rationaVnonrational) and the relations between them, as they surface in conflict situations.
Despite its limitations, 1 hope this study has provided useful insights into the ways in which organizational members enact and manage conflict in their daily interactions. By taking a disputing perspective, 1 hope the study has demonstrated that organizational conflict is a communicative process, part of ongoing organizational operations. In so doing, this study's findings complement communicative studies (Kolb
& Bartunek, 1992) that showed how organizational members can manage conflict more covertly or "behind-the-scenes." Depending on various elements that influence the context of the interaction (e.g., an opponents' power, personal interest, etc.), this study indicated that organizational members develop specific, informaI ways to deal with conflict. 107
Endnotes
[1] According to Cooren (2004), texts have a certain ability to act. Thus, by their remaining character ''the se textual agents fabricate relatively fixed spaces and times; they define objectives; they forbid specific behaviors; and they invite or enforce humans to follow specific organizational pathways" (p. 388). [2] Mr. Sam always saw the company as a big family. For example, he used to attend his employee's weddings or funerals. He thus sincerely cared about their welfare, although he could sometimes also be severe/strict. When his employees first went on strike (in 1965), he was very disappointed to see "his family" turning "against" him (Hadekel & Gibbon, 1991, p.103), yet he was serving coffee to the strikers. [3] In one interview (see Vincent & Blandford, 1996a), Irving Ludmer narrates a management meeting where Mr. Sam agrees to make a decision through democratic vote. After the vote was taken, the decision was not made according to the majority's vote, because Mr. Sam was not among those voters, but according to the minority group. [4] Hadekel and Gibbon (1991) suggest that Irving was the son Mr. Sam never had. He was one ofMr. Sam's favorites. He had great managerial skills, and was thus rapidlypromoted. [5] Irving willleave the company in 1971, due to his discontent with the ongoing nepotism (Hadekel & Gibbon, 1991, p. 173; Vincent & Blandford, 1996c). [6] Nepotism phenomena have always existed at Steinberg Ud. As Hadekel and Gibbon (1991) mentioned, through the years, nepotism was thriving as successive generations of the Steinbergs were joining the company. [7] According to Hadekel and Gibbon (1991), Jack Levine is the senior manager who often confronts Mr. Sam. Being the manager of Steinberg Ud.'s most important division (Québec Division), he is a trusted person and an important voice of the management committee. [8] Arnold's business skills were reconsidered at that time, because of the failure of the stores Steinberg Ud. had opened in Paris (Hadekel and Gibbon, 1991). Thus, although highly educated - a Harvard graduate - it is possible that he was not the first on Mr. Sam's succession list. [9] The decisions involving the company were made at Helen and Sam's house during the Sabbath family diners on Friday (Hadekel & Gibbon, 1991, p. 137), because the power in the company was still with the family members. [10] Mel Dobrin is the husband ofMr. Sam's eIder daughter, Mitzi. Traditionally, the eIder sonldaughter obtains the presidency of the family business. According to Hadekel and Gibbon (1991), Mitzi Dobrin in an interview remembered her father telling her that her future husband will someday run the company. She also mentioned that Mr. Sam's executives harassed him, by repeatedly addressing the succession problem. [11] In an interview, Mitzi Dobrin (see Hadekel & Gibbon, 1991) described her father' s authority and the huge power he had over his broth~rs. Irving Ludmer also talked about this (see Vincent & Blandford, 1996b), desçribing Mr. Sam's behavior toward one of his brothers during a management meeting. 108
[12] According to Hadekel and Gibbon (1991), family was very important to Mr. Sam, and because ofthis strong relationship, he was always influenced by his family. " 109
References
Bartunek, J.M., Kolb, D. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (1992). Bringing conflict out from behind
the scenes: Private, informaI, and nonrationaI dimensions of conflict in
organizations. In D. M. Kolb & J. M. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in
organizations (pp. 209-228). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1988). SociaI control in suburbia In D. Black (Ed.), Toward a
general theory ofsocial control (Vol. 2, pp. 72-103). New York: Academic
Press.
Black, D. (1990). The elementary forms of conflict management. In New School of
Justice Studies (Ed.), New directions in the study oflaw, justice and social
control (pp. 43-69). New York: Plenum.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid Houston, TX: Gulf.
Canary, D. J. (2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to
strategic choices. ln J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and social interaction skills (pp. 515-549). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, 1. (1988). Presidential address on the importance of our understanding
organizational conflict. Sociological Quarterly, 29, 149-161.
Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings.
Organization, Il,373-393.
Cooren, F. (Ed.). (2007). Interacting and organizing: Analysis ofa management
meeting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: John Wiley. 110
De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management
and conflict issue. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict
in organizations (pp. 9-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deetz, S., Heath, R., & MacDonald, J. (2007). On talking to not make decisions: A
critical analysis of organizational talk. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and
organizing: Analysis ofa management meeting (pp. 225-244). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51,227-242.
Francis, D. (1986). Controlling interest: Who owns Canada? Toronto: Macmillan of
Canada.
Francis, D. W. (1986). Sorne structures ofnegotiation talk. Language in Society, 15, 53-
80.
Firth, A. (1995). "Accounts" in negotiation discourse: A single-case analysis. Journal of
Pragmatics, 23, 199-226.
Garfinkel, H. (1967/1984) Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formai structures ofpractical actions. In J. C.
McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspective and
development (pp. 337-366). New York: Appleton.
Goffinan, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.
Gouldner, A. (1965). Wildcat strike. New York: Harper & Row.
Hammond, A. (producerlDirectorlWriter). (1974). After Mr. Sam [Motion picture].
Montréal: National Film Board of Canada.
Hadekel, P. & Gibbon, A. (1991). Steinberg: Le démantèlement d'un empire familial. 111
Montréal, QC: Libre Expression.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Heritage, J. (1987). Ethnomethodology. In A. Giddens & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Social
theory today (pp. 224-272). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch & R. E.
Sanders (Eds.), Handbook oflanguage and social interaction (pp. 103-147).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hocker, J. L. & Wilmot, W. W. (1985).lnterpersonal conflict (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA:
William C. Brown.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from ta1k about a trouble to inappropriately
next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of
social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.191-222). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, D. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). Introduction: The dialectics of disputing. In D. M.
Kolb & J. M. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering
behind-the-scenes disputes (pp. 1-31). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kolb, D. M., & Bartunek, J. A. (Eds.). (1992). Hidden conflict in organizations:
Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Latour, B. (1986). The power of associations. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief
(pp. 262-277). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Leiter, K. (1980). A primer on ethnomethodology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense ofethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan 112
Paul.
Lynch, M. (1994). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Maynard, D.W. and Clayman, S.E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual
Review ofSociology, 17,385-418.
Moch, M. K., & Bartuneck, J. M. (1990). Creating alternative realities at work: The
quality ofwork lift experiment at FoodCom. New York: Harper Business.
Morrill, C. (1989). The management of managers: Disputing in an executive hierarchy.
Sociological Forum, 4,387-407.
MorriII, C. (1991a). Conflict management, honor, and organizational change. American
Journal of Sociology, 97, 585-622.
Morrill, C. (1991 b). The customs of conflict management among corporate executives.
American Anthropologist, 93, 871-893.
MorriII, C. (1992). The private ordering of professional relations. In D. M. Kolb & J. M.
Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations (pp. 92-115). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way: Conflict management in corporations. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Morrill, C., & King Thomas, C. (1992). Organizational conflict management as a
disputing process: The problem of social escalation. Human Communication
Research, 18, 400-428.
Mouzelis, N. P. (1967). Organization and bureaucracy. Chicago: Aldine.
Nader, L., & Todd, H. F. (1978). The disputingprocess: Law in ten societies. New York:
Columbia University Press. 113
Perrow, C. (1979). Complex organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Pomerantz, A., & Febr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study
of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. v. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2,
pp. 64-91). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Putnam, L. L. (1997). Productive conflict: negotiation as implicit coordination. In C. K.
W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 147-
160). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Putnam, L.L. (2001). The language of opposition: Challenges in organizational dispute
resolution. In W.F. Eadie & P. E. Nelson (Eds.), The language ofconflict and
resolution (pp. 10-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational
conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.),
Communication yearbook (V 01.6, pp. 629-652). Beverly Hil1s, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. E. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook oforganizational
communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549-599). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ross, R. G., & DeWine, S. (1988). Assessing the Ross-DeWine conflict management
message style (CMMS). Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 389-413.
Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal ofSociology, 8, 1-16.
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course ofajoke's telling. In R. Bauman & J.
Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography ofspeaking (pp. 337-353).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 114
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for
the organization oftum-taking in conversation. Language, 50,696-735.
Sarat, A. (1987). The new formalism in disputing and dispute processing. Law and
Society, 21, 695-717.
Schegloff, E. (1980). Preliminaries to Preliminaries: 'Can 1 Ask Vou a Question?'.
Sociologicallnquiry, 50, 104-152.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and
c1inical analyses. New York: Academic Press.
Siegman, A. W. (1994). Cardiovascular consequences of expressing and repressing
anger. In A. W. Siegman & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart
(pp. 173-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ten Have, P. (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de
Methodologie Sociologique, 27, 23-51.
Ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology.
London: Sage.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conj1ict mode instrument.
Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis ofverbal communication patterns in high and low
marital adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9,306-319.
Van der Broucke, S. (1995). Marital communication in eating disorder patients: A
controlled observational study. Int(!rnational Journp/ ofEating Disorders, 17, 1-
21. Il5
Vincent, G. (Producer), & Blandford, M. (Director). (l996a). Ida et Sam [Motion
picture]. In G. Vincent (producer), Steinberg collection J. Canada: Sovimage
Productions.
Vincent, G. (producer), & Blandford, M. (Director). (1996b). Qu'est-ce qui a tué
Steinberg [part 1.] [Motion picture]. In G. Vincent (producer), Steinberg
collection 2. Canada: Sovirnage Productions.
Vincent, G. (producer), & Blandford, M. (Director). (1996c). Qu'est-ce qui a tué
Steinberg [part 2] [Motion picture]. In G. Vincent (producer), Steinberg
collection 3. Canada: Sovirnage Productions.
Walker, E. (1995). Making a bid for change: Formulations in union/management
negotiations. In Firth (Ed.), The discourse ofnegotiation (pp. 101-140). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Whalen, J. (1992). Conversation analysis. In E. F. Borgatta & M.L. Borgatta (Eds.),
Encyc10pedia ofsociology (Vol. 1, pp. 303-310). New York: Macmillan.
Wieder, D. L., Mau, H., & Nicholas, C. (2007). Documentaries are not data. In F.
Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analysis ofa management meeting
(pp. 245-288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1
Appendix
After Mr. Sam Transeript of the Management Meeting (As Appearing in Interacting and Organizing:
Analysis ofa Management Meeting by Cooren, 2007)
«Tide: National Film Board of Canada» «Voice ofperson speaking in French. Background image of a fountain. English sub-titles: Mr. Chancellor» «Sub-titles: the Faculty of Management is proud to honour one of Quebec's business le'aders-Mr. Sam Steinberg» «Commencement Ceremony» «Sub-titles: Starting with his mother's small store, which opened in 1917 on St. Lawrence Blvd ... he heads one of the largest chain of stores in Canada «Camera focuses on the speaker at the commencement ceremony. Sub-titles: It has 180 supermarkets in Quebec and Ontario and a new store in Paris-its third in Europe» Voiceover: «In the summer of1969, Sam Steinberg, President of Steinberg's Limited ofMontreal, rec~ived an honorary 4egr~~ in 8usiness Administration /rom Sherbrooke University in the province ofQuebec. In the 50 years ofone man rule he had built a small mainstream grocery store into an international retailing, manufacturing and real estate company with assets of224 million dollars, sales of553 mIllion dollars and more than 18 thousand employees» «Voice ofsp~a~r. Subtit1~s: We tb,çrefo~ aslc you to bestow op. MT. Steinberg an Honorary Doctorate of Business Administration» Voiceover: «But such honors marked the closing stages ofa man 's career. By 1969, the business had grown too large for one man to control and Sam Steinberg was ready to retire as President. As a result the corporation was in trouble, worried about its future leadership and unclear about wh~re it was going» «Scene of cars on a busy road and a close-up shot of an office block» «Title: THE NAUONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA PRESENTS» «Tide: CORPORATION-AFTER MR. SAM»
1 ARNOLDS: Uh, this company has been uh directed u::h by, Sam Steinberg 2 for- for sorne fifty y~ars now ~4 th~ COIllP~y has ~n btJilt up 3 around his leadership. And it's been built up uh on the 4 assumption that u:h (.) that nothing will happen to Mr. Sam 5 Steinberg in:n- for time in memori~, If uh anything did 6 happen, that- we- we would be faced with a catastrophic II
7 situation of- uh, in my opinion of a, of a most serious nature. 1 8 put number one in- 1 put succession as number one because 9 (0.2) ofthis catastropbic situation that would result, 1 think that 10 everything else would pale by comparison (0.2) in the event of Il something happening to- to the President. [eut?] Again the- 12 there' s a question of definition of succession. Succession, in 13 my opinion, is the steps that have to be taken n:ow: so that in 14 the event of the President retiring or if uh God forbid, 15 something catastrophic happened, uh .. th- th-t-there's a- a 16 natural order ofthings come into play (0.8) and uh and this is 17 the reason [1 see it, 18 ( ): [This is the reason [you chose 19 ARNOLDS: [tbis is the reason 1 see it as 20 number one. 21 JAMES D: 1 think [what we're co- 1 think what we're coming to]= 22 SAM S: [Vou listen, but that's not the (xxxx) l'm thinking]= 23 JAMES D: = Mr. President, 1 think that what we're coming to is, uh (.) a a: 24 realization that there's a sufficient difference of opinion in the 25 group. [which is not likely to be resolved (xxxx) 26 Voiceover: [«In early 1969, The President asked senior executives 27 for their views on the problems facing the company and in 28 February the management committee met to consider their 29 reports. Succession was the key issue but it was not the only 30 one. Many saw this as an opportunity to radical/y restructure 31 the company and shift a great deal ofthe power ofthe 32 presidency into the bands ofsenior executives. Others, 33 including the President, argued that neither succession nor 34 structure could be decided until the company's goals and 35 objectives were clarified The outcome ofthis argument would 36 determine the agenda for a three-day top management 37 conference at Palomino, the company lodge.» 38 JACK L: ... topsy turvy. How cao you start with all these objectives 39 before you know (.) that a (stop manager) [has taken ! 40 SAM S: [The way 1 look at it 41 is this (.) that 1 think it's much e:asier determined (.) the kind of 42 succession you want (.) after y:ou look at (0.8) what you're 43 reaching out for, and how you gonna go about attaining it. = 44 JACK L: = But Mr. Sam = 45 SAM S: = Then it follows you- (0.5) «(facial expression,fingers tap on 46 table» then it follows (0.8) u:h what competence you require 47 now. 48 JACK L: But we always talk about pie in the sky, we always talk about 49 g:oals (.) but we never talk about (.) h:ow we're gonna operate 50 to meet those goals (.) and ifwe don't start with the the the the 51 crux of the matter of talking about the succession and talk on 52 the structure and the-leadership, and THEN put in goals that 53 anybody here today can put goals (.) this far along, everybody III
54 bas a a a idea on goals. Then we again wiIlleave Palomino with 55 (.) no structure (0.2) to monit' ourselves (.) against the goals 56 that we have set ourselves to go. 57 «Possible edit/cut in tape.) 58 JOHN P: l think that the structure of the company has one single (0.5) 59 overwhelming purp- purpose and that is to facilitate the 60 achievement of company goals and objectives. (0.8) l'm been s- 61 eh. (1.0) l feel we have not esh-established our our objectives. 62 (0.5) And l think that's gotta come first. (0.2) Where we going, 63 what do we wanna he. 64 SAM S: This is exactly how l feel (0.5). Now listen to what l'm teIling, 65 each and every one ofyou. (0.5) Evidently over the past four 0' 66 five weeks, (0.5) a hundred or two hundred items (0.5) have to 67 be increased in price 68 JACK L:
101 JACK L: «Spoken with intensity and pointingfinger.» Are you running 102 one company or two companies? Is the structure that' s wrong? 103 Is it professional management' s wrong? Is it a (box) wrong? 104 How do you communicate? They communicate an' listen to this 105 an' an' 1 this is why 1 say structure (.) is so important an' how 106 we're gonna do it an' feedback an' control. .hh Th:ey been 107 raising prices from the tirst week. We kept prices back four 108 weeks, we did- though we got a co-cost increases, four (0.2) 109 three four weeks 'go three weeks 'go, so forth, we kept back 110 four weeks. They've been e- every week, putting in the priee 111 changes though they come in- the same problem with- They 112 discuss it with you? 113 (.) 114 SAM S: No = 115 JACK L: = Have they communicated with you? = 116 SAM S: = No. 117 JACK L: «Spoken with intensity and pointingfinger.» = Have they 118 communicated with anybody here? (0.5) How many companies 119 are you running? (0.5) What philosophy do you want? That's 120 why my frrst thing on page six (0.2) page six and 1 want you to 121 go back and read it. This is exactly- 1 1 am very glad you 122 brought it up. Because page six 1 say, for God sake, "the 123 objectives and goals and corporate philosophy, the objectives 124 and goals must be spelled out." What is your goals for Tor- ? 125 Are you running one business? Are you still running an- an 126 Ontario business? You wanna be the general manager here? Or 127 do you want to act as the President? Do you wanna act as a 128 corporate- as a corporate President for everybody or for one? 129 (1.0) 130 ( ): [Jack 131 JACK L: [That's a very, exactly the same [as l'm bringing out. 132 0: [Jim (xxxx ) 133 ( ): [1 just want to make sure we get, Mr. President 134 HARRY S: [Um Uh ... uh ... C'd 1- C'd 1 [bring this back (0.5) 1350: [Ijust wantto raise = 136 HARRY S: = C'd 1 bring this back on course (1.0) th[at uh 137 SAM S: [You're bringing it 138 back on course 139 HARRY S: l'm bringing it [right back on course] and say let's get right= 140 SAM S: [ (We're on course) ] 141 HARRY S: =back to the problem ofmaking maximum use (0.5) best use of 142 our time (0.8) and 1 don't think that this kind of interchange 143 (0.5) has contri[buted anything 144 ARNOLD S: [WeIl, 1 think Jack has raised a good 145 ex[ ample «several voices speaking at once. » 146 (): [a ve[ry good example 147 ARNOLD S: [a good [example v
148 ( ): «Yelling.)) [The whole purpose of all our exercise is if 149 we're not going to run our business right. 150 ARNOLD S: 1 think Jack has given an excellent «voices speaking at once)) 151 example of the shortcomings = 152 (): =Yes. 153 ARNOLD S: in the struc[ture 154 HARRY S: [Alright. [Alright. 155 ARNOLDS: [toward (xxxx) control 156 JACK L: That's right! 157 (): It's all how you interpret it. 1 thought Jack gave an excellent 158 example= 159 ( ): =Exeellent= 160 ( ): =of the shortcomings of not having c1ear un- 161 [çlear understanding of the business. 162 ( ): [Right. That's the way 1 interpreted it. 163 JACK L: «Yelling.)) Yeah! That's right. But you first have to have 164 s~c[tu,re~, in or4er to 40 it. 165 HARRY S: [Alright 166 HARRY S: Alright, Mel Mel has the floor. 167 MEL D: Obviously (.) gentleme~ inherent in eacb of our reports, (0.5) 168 although we don't state it (.) in negative tenns hh we're a:ll 169 try:ing to look at what the deficiencies (.) have been, what they 170 a:re, and how we're goin' to co~t them. This is (.) what 171 everyone really wants to do deep down. [Nobody is= 172 SAM S: [Absolutely. 173 MEL D: =saying "Look so and so is incompetent." We might think it 174 each of- whoever they think is incompetent or degrees of 175 competence and so on, but that is secondary at the moment ' cuz 176 we're not now evaluating individuals. AlI we are saying (.) is 177 that the sum total (.) of everything that bas been done (1.0) in 178 one way or the other bas not (.) been satisfactory. So we're 179 trying to change.=Now (0.5) ifwe had a structure that (.) certain 180 types of policies «(fist tap on table for emphasis)) must he 181 c1eared and spelled out> to the nth degree prior to 182 implementation, and a consistent follow up and discussion on 183 these policies (.) in all divisions, not only the Quebec Division, 184 the same applies to Ontario and everywhere else < then (.) these 185 things wouldn't happen. So they'd be prevented from 186 occurring. But it's no use telling Jack right now "Don't you 187 raise these priees" because (.) for two weeks the President was 188 away? and there's fow tho~d other items t:IW ~ @ppening 189 simultaneously? and it's physically impossible for any one 190 individual to consistently follow up and check and get 191 cl~çe? Therefore 1 submit trntt from my understanding, and 192 maybe it's limited, that unless we c1early spell o:ut, which is a 193 f:ar (.) less arduous task, the organizational structure, and how 194 we make decisions and how the reporting relationships will VI
195 function, to pennit these things to happen. Once that's c1eared, 196 then we gonna spend (0.2) a year, ifneed be, on spelling out 197 the objectives. Now (.) ifyou say objectives is just broadly that 198 we wanna maintain a profit, we wanna reverse a trend, who is 199 against that? That we can resolve in ten or fifteen minutes, so 1 200 s:ay (0.2) that we leave objectives until the other thing is settled 201 «Talk covered over by voiceover)). 202 Voiceover: «The argument over objectives versus strocture was resolved at 203 last by the President reading a statement ofcompany 204 philosophy. With that, objectives disappeared jrom the 205 Palomino agenda. (Cut away to a shot of Sam S., Mel D. and 206 another person walking along a snow-Iaden path towards the 207 gate ofPalomino.) At Palomino itself, a new and critical stage 208 in the life of the company was to begin. Ultimate power would 209 remain in the hands ofSam Steinberg through his control of the 210 company's voting shares but his authority and operating 211 control were about to be redistributed (Shot ofPalomino.) 212 That was something, which, in one way or another, touched the 213 ambitions ofalmost everyone taking part in the conference.)) 214 HARRY S: The need to revise the present structure is perhaps the most 215 agreed upon problem identified by those submitting reports. 216 (0.2) A number of different assumptions are made about the 217 need to reorganize at the top level for example, (.) ''No business 218 boasting annual sales ofhalfa billion dollars can afford to be so 219 organized (0.2) that in the absence ofa CbiefExecutive, no one 220 knows who is in control ... " «Talk covered over by the 221 voiceover)). 222 Voiceover: «The conference was chaired by the corporation 's Director of 223 Organizational Development, Harry Suffrin. The agenda 224 consisted offour items: decision-making, professional 225 management, succession, and strocture.)) 226 HARRY S: ... structure should look like. The most important point (.) is that 227 everyone recognizes a need for a new look into tbis (.) structure. 228 (2.0) «Rustle ofpages being turned)) Your task gentlemen 229 (0.8) based upon your reading of the organizational reports 230 submitted to the President, the pre-reading provided for you, 231 and the discussion outline, determine the senior management 232 structure of Steinberg' s Limited, taking into consideration the 233 decision-making process, the implementation of the decision, 234 the relationship of senior management to the rest of the 235 organization, the integration of divisional organizations, and the 236 functioning of the corporation. (3.0) «Rustle ofpages being 237 turned)) Now how do you wish to proceed. A suggestion was 238 made to me during the ... «Talk covered over by the voiceover)). 239 Voiceover: «These were the formaI channels in which discussion would 240 flow. But what underlay the discussion and gave it impetus was 241 the fact that Sam Steinberg was stepping down as President to VII
242 become Chairman ofthe Board.» 243 OSCAR P: «At writing board) Ij's' wanted to go over what 1 put down. 244 Now (0.5) We have a Chainnan of the Board and a President at 245 the present time ... «talk covered over by the voiceover». 246 Voiceover: «Not ail the senior executives present could hope to replace 247 him. Some like Oscar Plotnik, Vice-President ofthe Ontario 248 Division, were approaching retirement themselves. Others like 249 John Paré, Vice-President ofPersonnel, or Irving Ludmer, in 250 charge ofexpansion and development, were too recently with the 251 company or too specialized in their skills to be more than 252 remote contenders. Attentionfocused onfour people: Arnold 253 Steinberg, Sam Steinberg's nephew, a Harvard Business School 254 graduate and Vice-President Administration; James Doyle, the 255 corporation's widely respected Vice-President and General 256 Counsel; Mel Dobrin, the President's son-in-Iaw and Executive 257 Vice-President Retailing, currently in charge ofthe 258 (Department Store) Division, (lruJ J(lçk L~in.e, Viçe-President 259 ofthe Quebec Division, the corporation 's largest, the most 260 profitable retail division. But for everyone in the room, as 261 important as the question ofwho Wt;lS to be President, was the 262 question ofhow much power he should have and how much he 263 should share with other senior executives. This was the essence 264 ofthe deb(lte over struçturl:. Only on.e man ço~ld h(lVi! the top 265 job but the right /dnd ofstructure before he was appointed 266 would guarantee others significant power.» 267 JACK L: «At writing board» Now op.e of the barriers (.) we have, in- 268 everybody in the com.mittee bas said consistently- is that the 269 food business, we're, we're not getting the mileage out of our 270 food bllSin~SS bççallSe we're running two different kind of food 271 businesses, and not together. And there's inefficiencies, so 1 put 272 the the the the uh all the retail, food business under one man. 273 «Talk covered over by voiceover». 274 Voiceover: «Various structures were proposed Most contentious was the 275 suggestion that the corporation's existing divisions be 276 regrouped under Iwo or three executives or group vice- 277 presidents. They would be powerful enough to have a 278 significant influence over any future President. But every 279 division already reported to someone in the room. Increased 280 authority for Iwo or three people might seem like demotion for 281 the rest. At this point, the common interest in decentralizing 282 ~thority from thl: Prl:sid~n.t migh! come into confliçt with 283 individual ambitions.» 284 JACK L: «At writing board» Now, 1 am saying, this is my assumption, 285 maybe other people, aQQ the rçgroupings may he done 286 differently,.but definitely, this is the the thing 1 am subscribing . 287 to, with these two added add'd functions. 288 SAM S: No but l'm still confused VIII
289 (0.2) 290 JACK L: Sorry if 1 am not 291 HARRY S: (xxxx) the President 292 (2.0) 293 SAM S: l'm looking at your chart and uh, 1 felt that uh as 1 said, 1 started 294 out to say, the cobwebs have somewhat (1.0) lifted (1.0) and 295 when 1 look at this (.) chart so to speak and looking at it from 296 your point ofview 1 see Vice-President Quebec, Ontario (0.2) 297 manufacturing, private label, market research. (0.5) Now are we 298 saying that the Vice-President (0.5) of my Quebec Division 299 (0.8) is the Vice-President over the Vice-President of Quebec 300 and Ontario Division? 301 JACK L: Yes, l'm tellin' one Vice-President is respons' for all tbis so 302 they have a man- you'lI have a man (.) res[ponsible 303 SAM S: [A Vice-President for 304 Quebec? 305 JACK L: Yeah! If [he's (xxxx) 306 SAM S: [A Vice-President 'n Ontario= 307 JACK L: 1 don't care [names 308 SAM S: = [And we'll have another Vice-President (0.5) in 309 ch:arge of all of these three operations, beside you 've added a 310 couple (.) uh of others. Now, we said the purpose of this 311 meeting i::s that we arriv~ a.t som~ lli.lders~
336 () No 337 (0.5) 338 SAM S: WeIl, it doesn't [show anything here- 339 JAMES D: [He's not been talking about whether there 340 was a Vice-President in charge of Quebec Division. He is 341 saying there's a Quebec Division there and there is an 342 [Ontario Division there and somebody is over the two ofthem. 343 (): [Yeah, you've got one man in (xxxx). 344 OSCAR P: U::h so what is reaHy the (0.2) you know it's it's no difference 345 really = 346 SAM S: =The difference- the main thing is [do you accept = 347 OSCARP: [Yeah 348 SAM S: =[it whether you ca1l it= 349 OSCAR P: [Yeah but l, 1= 350 SAM S: =super Executive Vice-President. 351 OSCAR P: =don't accept it because .(0.5) uh 1 think that the uh. (0.5) 1 352 know we're imposing u:h you know these uh Executive Vice- 353 Presidents on the President maybe (.) uh uh the next President 354 may not want Executive Pr-Vice-Presidents 1 don't know but aIl 355 1 know (.) hhh and what 1 feel right now is that (.) what we are 356 what is being suggested by A [and B 357 SAM S: [They're one and the same, they 358 shouldn't make [no difference 359 OSCAR P: [They're the same they're the same and two men 360 agree. 1 say that they'Il be no different than the way we're 361 operating today. 362 (1.0) 363 SAM S: The point is this. Are you goin' along with it? (0.8) Do you 364 think that would be helpful to us to = 365 OSCAR P: = 1'11 say that there's that there's too many people (0.5) too 366 many people are going to be answering to the President and the 367 President (.) hh will not be able (0.2) under un-under this 368 [plan 369 SAM S: [There will be fewer people, there will be fewer people ifyou 370 have group Vice-Presidents. 371 OSCAR P: No we'Il gonna have uh .. [(xxxx) 372 SAM S: [Fewer people than he would now 373 ha:ve, then the man couldn 't be in charge of a group of areas = 374 OSCAR P: =l'm talking about the people answering to the President. 375 (): Eleven now. 376 (2.0) 377 SAM S: There'd be fewer people. 378 «Five or six people talking at the same time.)) 379 IRVING L: Vou know something (0.2) Can 1 say something (1.0) 380 HARRY S: Irving. 381 IRVING L: Could 1 say something? (1.5) Could 1 say something? 382 ARNOLD S: AlI the areas now report to aIl the people in this room, = x
383 IRVING L: =Look= 384 (HARRY S):=Irving= 385 IRVING L: =Loo~ let me let me just add this = 386 ARNOLD S: =How can you. How can you talk about the President, a man a 387 man who doesn't exist at the present time .. = 388 ( ): =Talking about yourself. 389 ARNOLD S: Uh ... but now you're gonna start talking about yourself= 390 IRVING L: =You know, right now,= 391 JAMES D: =A11 our previous discussions, and we had sorne before we 392 came up here to Palomino, we thought (.) uh it was impressed 393 on us and many individuals raised the point that we should be 394 try:ing (0.2) > difficult as it is for all ofus< to be objective 395 about what we said in these reports (.) and to th:ink of the 396 organization (.) not in terms of the incumbency in any one 397 position but as to h:ow the organization itself(.) should be (.) 398 best structured from the point of view, and w:orry about the 399 b:odies to fill the positions ~fW~ds. And that is what, if 400 we're going to be objective, we should be doing here (0.2) and 401 we're d:odging the issue because we're saying "Ah (0.5) it might 402 possibly point thefinger at any one of us, and that's a.,. too 403 delicate area for us to discuss" = 404 () = (x [xx) 405 JACK L: [You know wbat 1 think? 1 think.., 1 think we're getting 406 chicken! 407 JAMES D: Yeah!= 408 JACK L: =We all ought to havç çnough nerve, gumption, look at the 409 company hh and say to our present President (.) in writing 410 "Look Mr President, you have to reorganize (02) because we 411 have. certain weakne.sses that ifwe
430 he::'s going to detennine the kind ofa structure that he can 431 operate with effectively in order to achieve the desired goals. < 432 You say to him "We' Il make you the President, but this is the 433 way you're gonna have to operate" uh 434 JACK L: But we have we have we h:ave (0.5) al think a responsibility 435 as a group (.) to put this kind ofrecommendations on the board 436 the same way we did other recommendations, rather than leave 437 it again (.) for a haphazard uh uh putting together without the 438 resources to put together or cali another meeting for that 439 purpose. 440 HARRY S: Arnold you're speaking. 1 recognize you. 441 ARNOLD S: 1 think uh (.) traditionally the President of the United States or 442 the Prime Minister under the parliamentary system (.) alone 443 chooses his own Cabinet and for the most part (.) the choice of 444 Cabinet depends on the skills of that particular individual. 1 445 think it was obvious that under Kennedy (0.2) uh he chose a 446 very weak Secretary of State because he himself wanted to be 447 the Secretary ofState. (0.2) Uh uh 1 think that to for a a 448 President to come out into the job uh (0.2) without this choice 449 (0.5) d'uh being made by him, 1 think puts him at uh a very 450 serious disadvantage. 451 «People talkingat the same lime.)) 452 HARRY S: l'm (xxxx) for (xxxx) President, imagine the story told to me by 453 (Hoag) Simpson, most ofyou know him. He was now speaking 454 to a student who took a six weeks' a- advanced course. After 455 the six weeks are over he says "How do you feel now?" hhh and 456 the student replies "Mr. Simpson when 1 came here 1 was 457 confused (.) but now l'm still confused (.) but at a much higher 458 level." 459 «Laughter from the audience.)) 460 HARRY S: Are you confused Mr. Presi[dent at a much 461 SAM S: [No, 462 HARRY S: (0.5) Good = 463 SAM S: = No sir 464 HARRY S: Alright 465 SAM S: Let me tell you l'm very pleased (0.8) the way we're 466 progressing with this. 467 HARRY S: Alright. Guy 468 GUYN: Yah. (1.0) As far as l'm concem 1 must say (0.5) that (.) there is 469 a time to disagree (0.5) and this is what we're doing (.) the 470 present rime .hh but 1 must say though that (0.2) as s:oon as a 471 decision is made .hh which is considered to be in the best 472 interest of the company hh Guy Normandin won't resent (.) 473 being (.) demoted ifthis is called demotion (.) and he will be 474 prepared to pull 'n the same direction as other people. 475 «Two applause.)) 476 HARRY S: Alright. Jack, you have the legitimate floor. XII
477 JACK L: 1 (.) kn:ew we would get at sorne point (.) ofthis kind of 478 contention (0.5) and uh uh (.) 1 was willing, myself, to take that 479 risk and stand ab't to the job that 1 will he allocated to, to my 480 ability, based on the evaluation ofmy present superior, wbich 481 happens to be Sam Steinberg. (1.0) 1 think that ifwe don't look 482 at the barriers and put [ourselves 483 SAM S: [You'd be up in Siberia ifit was up to 484 me. 485 «Laughter.» 486 JACK L: Then 1'11 [go. 487 ( ): [That's 'where you'll put 'em. 488 JACK L: When 1 put these things out 1 feel deeply about the organization 489 and where it's going and where it should go. An' l'm willing to 490 (.) subject IllY own persona! goals at this point- though l 'ave 491 personal goals- to the good or welfare of the organization. So 492 l'm not looking atj:obs or job descriptions or job titles bh what 493 will be best for the company l'm prepared to do. 494 (l.5) 495 SAM S: That was always understood. 496 (): Very good «knocking on the table.» 497 (1.5) 498 SAM S: And nobody [knows that better than me. 499 HARRY S: [Irving. 500 IRVING L: 1 think that's the groupings that are made (0.2) .bh are really the 501 prerogative of the Chairman and whoever he nominates to be 502 the President .hh and those groupings, 1 only want to submit, 503 must be made on two bases = 504 ( ): «Someone coughing.» 505 IRVING L: = m.d 1don't lqtow ~fwe qm go muc.h deeper ~th it (.) over 506 here. And that is this: number one is what is a natural grouping 507 business wise? and the number two (.) is the competence, and of 508 the of the people available (.) hI the judgement of the Chairman 509 (.) and bis President .hh and that will obviously have to 510 determine to sorne degree the groupings uh fundamentally 511 base
524 ((l'itle: Part Two-The Family.)) 525 Voiceover: ((Dinner was afamily affair with Mrs. Sam Steinberg 526 supervising the cooking and waiting on table. The business had 527 been a family affair /rom the beginning, built by Sam Steinberg 528 and his four brothers /rom the small grocery store their mother 529 had opened in 1917. But its growth had created needs the 530 family could no longer supply, both in numbers ofsenior 531 executives and in specialized professional skills. Outside 532 professionals li1œ James Doyle, the corporation 's Vice- 533 President and General Counsel, now sat on the management 534 committee alongside Morris and Nathan Steinberg, Iwo ofthe 535 President's three surviving brothers. Sam Steinberg had no 536 sons but a nephew, Arnold Steinberg, was on the management 537 committee, as was one ofthe President'sfour sons-in-Iaw, Mel 538 Dobrin, the Executive Vice President Retailing and at least one 539 grandson was already being given a glimpse ofthe action. 540 The continuing dominant role of(he family and a feeling thQt 541 this would unduly influence the choice ofa new President, were 542 matters ofconcern throughout the company, concern which 543 underlay the apparently contentedfamily atmosphere at 544 dinner.)) 545 «Cut way to close up shots ofwriting on newsprint.» 546 Voiceover: ((l'hefamily problem surfaced in (he discussion ofprofessional 547 management. The many barriers to professional management 548 were jirst listed on sheets ofnewsprint. They included such 549 problems as poor decision-making and bad inter-(iivisional 550 relations, as weil as family organization.)) 551 JAMES D: .. , tremendous amount of success. (0.5) There has to have b:~n 55~ (0.2) a c~ degree (.) ofprofessional man~ement (0.2) and 553 for its rime (0.2) and the time in which we've been profes-we 554 have been successful, 1 think we have to recognize .hh a certain 555 professional (.) competency ifyou like. (0.2) Now (0.5) W1 556 >somebody mentioned intuition < (0.5) and 1 say that in any 557 company that's ever going anywhere and succeeding you must 558 have ~ h:igh degree in your top managem~nt .hh of (0.4) 559 intuitiveness or at least an understanding of (.) w:hat the 560 company can do hest and can succeed best (.) at doing. And 561 this 1 think in the past we had. (0.5) But (0.5) very largely 1 562 think this was based on the talent and judgement (.) of our 563 President (0.5) ~d partly because ofbis s-strong convictions 564 bis personality and (.) the rest, (0.2) we have (.) tended perhaps 565 to be more foll:owers than leaders. 566 ((Possible cut/edit in tape.)) 567 JAMES D: Doesn't per se mean [that as individuals we lack the talents= 568 ( ): [Of course. 569 (): =That's right. 570 (): No. XIV
571 JAMES D: or the aptitude (.) to be professional managers= 572 (): =We're lacking an integrated approach this is [the- 573 SAM S: [That's right. 574 (): An integrated approach. 575 ((Fhree or four people talking at the same lime.)) 576 JAMES D: The way the [way (xxxx)= 577 SAM S: [We're lacking a team a team approach. 578 JAMES D: =The way we ope~te is (.) Wlprofessional. 579 SAM S: That's it (.) this is what he is saying. 580 [It doesn't mean w~ lack professional. 581 JAMES D: [1 just wanna make a distinction. 582 SAM S: That's right. It doesn't follow that we lack professional skills= 583 IRVING L: =Look, we've been passing a lot of platitudes uh up to now 1 584 don't think: that uh we're leveling ail that much. And 1 think that 585 by ta[king these barriers 586 ( ): [Ha! Ha! Ha! 587 (): Speak for yourself= 588 IRVING L: =Well, 1 am speaking for myself. And uh 1 think that uh in 589 [ifwe took these barriers 590 ( ): [See, you're not leveling (xxxx) 591 IRVING L: Alright, let's say l'm not leveling= 592 ((l'wo or three people are talking at the same lime.)) 593 IRVING L: =((With a wry smile.)) 'Cos 1 go~ a lot more that 1 hav~ not even 594 come close to saying= 595 ((People speaking at the same time.)) 596 ( ): (xxxx) 597 IRVING L: =and 1 will (.) AIright so 1 say, to start it off, why don't we give, 598 why don't We take the barri~rs.hh as Oscar just suggested and 599 say we ha.v~ a, whole bWlÇh of stuff listed that-thes~ are the 600 reasons w:hy we're not a professional (.) uh company eh? We 601 don't run a professionaI manageriaI style. hh so let's take these 602 things and let's put 'em on the table=1 would like to suggest that 603 we do this .h and let' s hear w:hy people have suggested them 604 and why they feel or what things they're referring to and 1 don't 605 think we should defend any ofthese things, > 1 don't think the 606 objective is to come and say "WeIl you know why we did this 607 was because we had that." 1 think we shouldjust bring out and 608 let the people say w:hy they feel these things were suggested (.) 609 and 1 think we're gonna leam more (.) about what's wrong (.) 610 than we would in any other manner. < 611 ((Severt;ll people talking at once.)) 612 (): (I think that was) a good suggestion (.) actually? 613 (): The that we look at barriers to [xxx 614 HARRY S: [How do you feel about barriers? 615 You wanta go into barriers?= 6160: =Yes 1 would= 617 (): =1 think it's a good suggestion. xv
6180: (xxxx) 619 (): Absolutely. 620 HARRY S: (xxxx) We're on barriers now. 621 (0.2) 622 ARNOLD S: 1 think (.) there's been a number ofvery m:ajor decisions which 623 have been taken (.) uh (.) there seems to be an assumption (.) 624 that there' sa-an etemal t:ap? that we tum on and the cash just 625 flows out. And frankly uh unfortunately we're at the stage 626 where just the reverse happens to be true where there is no more 627 cash. And unless we we follow these events very closely we 628 could find ourselves in serious trouble. Let me give you 629 another example: we at the present time (0.2) have four million 630 dollars invested in the restaurant business (.) four million 631 dollars (.) There was never a decision made to invest anything 632 like that kind ofmoney (0.5) by any one individual= 1 doubt 633 frankly that anyone in this room even knew we have four 634 million dollars (.) invested in the restaurant business and that 635 doesn't include the buildings. This is l'm talking just about the 636 leasehold improvements and the equipment and the inventories, 637 four million dollars. Now that was no planned decision (0.5) 638 and yet it someh:ow with the 100 se kind of organization we 639 have, we find ourselves at the beginning of nineteen sixty-nine 640 with a four million dollars investment and we will lose this year 641 something like four hundred thousand dollars in that business. 642 JAMES D: WeIl Arnold, that particular type you've been 643 [giving an example 644 ARNOLD S: [l've been giving an example of the barriers. 645 JAMES D: You have given an example of what 1 was going to cite myself 646 as a combination ofa) one-to-one decision-making and b) and f) 647 family organization. 'Cos if ever there was an example of the 648 family (0.5) and one-to-one decision-making (.) getting us in a 649 spot (.) that is it. (1.0) As every- uh certainly Bill knows this (.) 650 and l'm l'm sure uh Bill did it (.) and 1 did it (0.2) we were 651 against this whole thing. (1.0) We (.) vr'-I was most 652 vociferously against it (0.5) uh in principle > right from the 653 start=I said "Ifwe're going to go into this kind of an outside 654 venture< (.) let us go out and get the best possible people we 655 can (0.8) and (1.0) let's not settle for any second best (.) let's not 656 go into the basis of(.) buying a company that is already (0.8) 657 not making money (0.2) but losing money." (0.8) That there's a 658 a specifie (.) eviden- example oftwo barriers (.) where the one- 659 to-one decision-making is made (.) and at the same time (.) ifs 660 the family organization=when 1 say organization (.) the family 661 (.) ifyou like (.) pulling rank (.) on the rest of the non-family 662 executives in the corporation an' saying "WeIl thafs the way ifs 663 goin' to be." 664 (2.0) XVI
665 JAMES D: An' an' an' in effect (.) the non-family part of the business had 666 absolutely notbing to say about that and what they did say (.) 667 was absolutely ignored. 668 (1.0) 669 JACK L: I want to keep [on this (xxxx)= 670 JAMES D: [Certainly. 671 JACK L: =only because I think we're getting sorne feelings out. For 672 three, four, five years, Mel and I have been saying very clearly, 673 yearly, we used to do it yearly, that the organization being (.) 674 built at corporate was much too heavy for our retail kind of 675 operation that we're into .. hh and we just talked against the 676 wind. As we talked it grew bigger and as we talked it grew 677 bigger .hh and (.) it- tbis costs us time and money and 678 competitiveness because ofthis one kind ofact=and we couldn't 679 make any change. We had no power=I had no power making 680 change, .hh M:el (.) didn't have the power because I know Mel 681 yelled as much I did, no power. Now where is there an 682 organization responsibility? (0.5) and a function of a 683 management (.) in order to take tbis kind ofv-view into fact and 684 see ifwe can afford what we're building. (0.5) Never was? Is 685 that, is that making manag- professional management as a 686 professional management exercising (.) decision-making? I 687 think we, we've failed= 688 ARNOLD S: =l'm (not sure) about that Jack. Wbich what you're saying 689 impl:ies (.) that there was duplication (.) that was unnecessary 690 building. [Isn't that what you're implying? 691 JACK L: [Mmh, yes, absolutely. 692 ARNOLD S: But surely the corollary to that (.) is that the duplication existed 693 at the corp- at the divisionallevel. You're saying that the 694 divisionallevel had to have what the corporate didn't. Wo' but 695 surely (.) in in a discussion (0.2) wbich is now coming out in 696 the in in work that Bill's group is doing (.) they're discovering\ 697 that the duplication is in fact taking place at the division (.) and 698 the real need is at corporate? I mean ail l'm saying Jack is that 699 in fact I agree that duplication exists. 700 JACK L: But Arnold= 701 ARNOLD S: =But you're assuming that duplication is at the corporate an' not 702 at the division 703 JACK L: ((Shouting.)) But (.) corporate started to build up (immaterial) 704 that was at the division. Now where should it be?= 705 ARNOLD S: =Maybe [xxx corporate who say the division grew up not= 706 JACK L: [xxx at corporate? 707 ARNOLD S: =even though it was at the corporate. (xxxx) Jack, I am agreeing 708 that some[ one should have sat down. 709 JACK L: [Okay (0.5) Right! That's ail what I am saying. 710 ((Everybody talking at the same lime.)) 711 HARRY S: Would you please speak (.) one at a time and I think XVII
712 professionalism can start right here the way we conduct the
) 713 meeting. Too many meetings in the past have been 714 unprofessional in that (.) problems in an unorganized manner 715 have been tossed on the table. Philosophies are spewed out. 716 (0.5) So professional at the meeting meanS (.) identifying the 717 problem? (0.5) moving from there to different means of solving 718 them (.) a:nd this is where we fall flat on our (.) backs again and 719 again (.) is not nailing down ((hand taps table)) who's to do 720 what and when ((hand taps table)) and how ((hand taps table)). 721 (0.5) Ifyou want to turn this thing into (.) a >fish market 722 gentlemen<, it' s your meeting but= 723 ((Harry's gaze during above comment was directed to the entire 724 table, movingfrom person to person)) 725 JACK L: =Look. Harry, uh 1 J wanna stop (.) and critique what you're 726 saying with your= 727 HARRY S: =Go ahead= 728 JACK L: =1 am saying that at least ifyou do:p.'t get: out f~lmgs «band 729 tap)) on this ((tap)) table ((tap)) today ((tap)) and Monday 730 ((tap)) and Tuesday ((tap)), we'll all go ((tap)) back and say 731 "W~'re-w~ shOuJd bav~ s!lid and w~ didn't say" ((tap)) and it's 732 the feelings ((tap)) that count ((tap)). It's the commitment 733 ((tap)) one feels inside (.) that counts, it's not words (.) and it's 734 not it's th~ 759 JACK L: °AbsolutelyO 760 SAM S: Fr:eely spoken. 761 (0.5) 7620: [Well 1 1 763 SAM S: [To the extent that we think it's pretty weIl covered by what's 764 already been said then we move 0forward. 765 (1.0) 766 ARNOLD S: Harry, 1 would like to deal with a barrier that has been talked 767 about and uh by many people. One which (.) 1 am, 1 guess 768 particu1arly sensitive to, that has to do with number f) family 769 organization. 770 ( ): (xxxx) 771 ARNOLD S: Uh uh 1 think there's implied.in many ifnot (0.5) most of the 772 submissions that deal with professional management leadership, 773 > 1 think all of them pretty much do < (.) the idea that most or 774 a:Il of the members of the family (.) would prefer working in an 775 organization (.) where professional management takes a 776 secondary role (.) to nepotism or or or fam- or family 777 preference. (0.5) An' in this area II cao obviously only speak 778 for myself(1.0) but 1 think l'm speaking for for most ifnot a:Il 779 of the second generation (.) family members when when 1 state 780 that that nep- that n-nepotism (0.2) generates sa-satisfaction to 781 any (.) particular individual for a very short period oftime. (0.8) 782 And that in the long run uh career satisfaction of an individual 783 (0.2) uh let me put it differently (.) that that when (.) nep- 784 nepotism plays an important role (.) in the choice (0.2) of an 785 individual for management (.) the satisfaction that cornes from 786 that is very short lived to any particular individual (.) who 787 thinks of himself(.) in a management capacity (.) and 1 think as 788 1 said 1 speak weIl 1 know 1 only speak for for myself(.) in fact 1 789 suspect that l'm voicing the opinion (.) of aIl ifnot most of the 790 members of the family. 791 (l.0) 792 SAM S: hh now uh (0.8) uh the only comment 1 would like to make at 793 this mom- this moment was that 1 read a Harvard report (0.5) 794 where it deals with families in organizations= 795 ( ): =We an read it. ((people interropting and agreeing.)) 796 SAM S: Alright! So it tells you that after a period oftwenty years there 797 is more family than ever before=and that hasn't affected the the 798 performances as 1 read it in these companies. (1.0) On the> 799 other hand < (0.5) 1 think that when we look around the table 800 over here, we talk about family, (1.0) weIl (.) 1 looked upon 801 Jack as a member of the family=I look up:on (.) Oscar as a 802 member of the family (.) l've looked up~)O Jack Ginser always 803 as a member of the family (.) and 1 think that they look upon 804 themselves as a member offamily. 805 ((Four or five people talking at the same lime.)) XIX 806 (): That's not a very good example. 807 (): Your definition offamily and everyone else's xxx 808 SAM S: l'm not will you please listen to me? l'mjust giving you by way 809 of example because (.) he started right at the very heginning 810 with us. 811 (1.5) 812 ((People talking at once.)) 813 SAM S: But (.) now let's go to the next step (.) let's take where people (.) 814 let's say (.) blood blood relations= 815 (): =That's hetter= 816 SAM S: =No? We'll go the next step regardless the next step, blood 817 relations. (0.5) Wherever the m:an (1.0) could not measure up 818 or we had somebody more competent in job (0.2) the person 819 that was most competent got it but to s:ay (.) .hh that if a 820 member of the family who's in the firm who has the competence 821 an' he can't he considered because he is a memher of the family 822. is wrong. 823 ((People denying they implied that.)) 824 IRVING L: Well 1 tell yOll, Ijust wanna comment a little on this because uh 825 (0.2) l've had a lot of uh people uh come to me and talk to me 826 about this bec- may he because:e you know l'm a little younger 827 and only joined the company .hh uh sorne eleven years ago and 828 uh went tbrough ail tbis and in my case obviously it was no 829 great deterrent for me.. hh but uh let me just say this, that uh 830 there is an awareness (0.5) in the co- in Many of the people in 831 the company tbat ub there is such a thing as an informai 832 organization at Steinherg's (0.8) which is directly linked to the 833 family (.) and there's an informaI organization perhaps in every 834 company but this o~e happe~ to be diNctly linked to the family 835 .hh to the point wh:ere (.) there uh there (.) ifyou're sitting 836 among a group ofpeers (0.5) that the fact th', and l'm gonna 837 level here and tell you that the standardjoke is (.) that the key 838 decisions are not made at the management committee (.) or with 839 the President (.) but at Friday night supper (1.0) and this in itself 840 is very indicative because l'm sure yo~'v~ all heard the same e- 841 expressions used (0.2) and it's very indicative (.) as to how 842 people see the organization an' how they read it. They don't see 843 (.) equ:ality; if one fella happens to he Vice-President ofthis 844 and another fella Vice-President ofthat and they're both putting 845 forth their opinions, if one happens to he related (.) the feeling 846 is (.) !hat he's got an awfullot m.OJ;e tQ say (.) a) because he is 847 much c1oser, b) it's sort ofbis money involved and, c:) it's 848 because (.) he goes to the Friday night supper as opposed to the 849 <:>ther party (.) and. think that titis (.) is th.~ f~ling aplong a lot 850 of the people (.) in the organization. They feel it definitively 851 has hampered in the past (.) and 1 might add (.) that uh perhaps 852 from my own point of view anyways is probably is less so now xx 853 than it bas been (0.5) and it's been very severe in the past (.) in 854 my oplnIon. 855 (2.0) 856 IRVING L: And 1 can tell you there's a lot ofpeople they spend a lot of 857 time talking about this stuff(0.2) a lot of0time. And so 1 think 858 we have to recognize it and he aware of it. 859 (4.0) 860 SAM S: 1 just wanna make (.) 1 just wanna ask you one question=ls it 861 yOuf charm or ability got you where you are now? That's all 1 862 want to know. ((laughing.))= 863 ((People spealdng at once.)) 864 ( ): =Good looks ... 865 ((Laughter.)) 866 MEL D: No, he attended the Friday night dinner. 867 ((Everybody laughing.)) 868 JAMES D: No yeah but to to support everything that Irving is saying uh 869 there is also and 1 think Irving could, might caU in on this (.) 870 there's a sort ofuh (0.5) another:r feeling around (0.5) that (0.5) 871 a a certain amount of this has (.) definitely been taken care of in 872 a much hetter way in recent years with the appointment of other 873 non-family people to very senior positions. But running along 874 with that wh-whether we like to admit it or not there's a there's 875 one school ofthought going around wbich sort oflooks as us a 876 little bit like the Negroes in a cabinet (0.5) you know (.) that 877 really we're we're there more for show ((starting to laugh)) than 878 for performance. And that the real decisions are still made as 879 Irving says in the in the Friday night eh meetings whether that's 880 (0.5) has validity or not, that's what they helieve= 881 SAM S: =(xxxx) 1 don't think 1 need to answer that but certain you were 882 never put on for show. 883 (1.2) 884 MORRIS S: Nepotism cau actually exist (.) not only in family but when a: 885 General Manager in bis own division can have nepotism in bis 886 ((one person spealdng at the same time)) own family. So 887 nepotism does not only exist in a in a uh family. 888 (0.5) 889 ARNOLD S: The whole question ofnepotism (.) in my opinion is not really 890 (.) coming out on the table. (0.5) In this sense from what 1 891 gather and and it's May be not right for me to to bring it up uh 892 (.) uh but (.) throughout the reports (0.8) throughout the reports 893 (0.2) there is (0.2) ifnot (0.2) written certainly between the 894 lines (1.0) there is the the the uh obvious statement (.) that this 895 company h:as been ruled (.) and is suffering (0.8) badly (.) as a 896 result of nepotism. And frankly 1 have a feeling that if a vote 897 was taken (1.0) by the people here more people would vote in- 898 in to the correctness of that statement than to the wrongness of 899 that statement. XXI 900 ((Several people talking at once.)) 901 JACK L: (xxxx) 1 think (xxxx) you're pushing, 1 guess y:ou're u:h you're 902 rightly 80. 1 think what uh sorne of us said in our report was that 903 (.) u::h ifs inconceivable that a decision of succession (.) u:h 904 would not been u:h 'cos size of our company, would not have 905 been made that decision before now ifit wasn't for the dilemma 906 (0.5) of the family. 907 SAM S: y ou're talkin' about how would you say eh (3.0) 1 had the word 908 on the tip of my tongues when you say franchise but this (1.0) 909 u:h (.) 1'11 say is this=l'l1 put it simpler "Does this rule out (0.5) 910 ((pointing to Arnold)) Arnold because he's a member of the 911 [family?" 912 (): [No ((several people speaking)) no, no. 913 SAM S: We11, ofcourse l've got to make sure that 1 understand that 914 clearly, he's a member of the [family. 915 (): [We're coming to that (xxxx) 916 We're coming to that. 917 ((People still talking al the same time.)) 918 JACK L: What are you asking? Come on. What is he asking? 919 ( ): l'm not sure. 920 JACK L: 1 don't know what he is asking? 921 (): Are you are you doing something underhand? 922 ( ): Our boss is doing 80mething (~) 923 ( ): 1 don't know, 1 mean. 924 SAM S: Let me finish please (0.5) let me finish. 925 HARRY S: Satisfied?= 926 SAM S: =Now if the man can't be considered for the job because he's a 927 member of the family we better know the ground rules right at 928 the beginning. 929 ((People talking, some laughing.)) 930 JOHN P: That the idea of a professional manager and the [idea of (xxxx) 931 ARNOLD S: [1 don't think 932 one would define nep-nepotism as saying that even wh:ere a 933 member of the family (.) is sup:erior (1.0) uh uh or or the lack 934 ofnepotism 1 should say where (.) 1 dQn't think the lack of 935 nepotism means or the non-existence of nepotism uh impl:ies 936 that even where a member of the family (.) is suitable (.) eh or is 937 the most suitable candidate for the job (.) that ifs not available 938 to hirn= 939 JOHN P: =We11 ifl understood Mr. Sam right, he was saying that uh all 940 things being equal (.) the member of the family would get the 941 the job. (1.0) 1 don't see that's (0.5) ((someone speaking at the 942 same time)) 1 mean ifs almost like uh sellÏority= 943 JACK L: =1 tbink that the company in a position (0.2) uhh that (0.2) 944 cautiously (0.2) must make a decisions (0.2) that uh (0.2) > 945 everything being equal < the family member won't get it (.) 946 ((people talking at the same time)) for the nineteen (xxxx). 1 XXII 947 think it would be better for (.) the company. 948 ( ): That's reverse (prejudice)? 949 (): That's right= 950 ( ): =Um hum= 951 JACK L: =No (.) it isn't. ((people still talking at the same lime.)) 952 SAM S: Listen (.) foremost in my mind there's al:ways been (0.5) the 953 person's ability to cope with his job (0.2) at the point when he 954 was no longer able to measure up to that job (.) he was replaced 955 and that'll go ail the years that we've been in business. Doesn't 956 matter wh:at that relationship (.) happened to be. (0.2) Now, 957 however it's viewed (0.5) from the outside (1.0) as long as 1 am 958 in the job in any case (0.8) family will always be given 959 consideration but always (.) subject to the person's ability to 960 discharge that responsibility. 961 JOHN P: We (.) bru shed over the Friday nights= 962 ((Several people laughing.)) Ha ha ha! 963 JOHN P: =l'd like to be in a position to say with conviction not (0.5) 964 the organ- (0.2) Certainly the family discusses business 965 when they get together (.) but the decisions are 966 [made in the management committee. 967 SAM S: [xxx We don't discuss business at Friday night. 968 JOHN P: Weil you don't, l'm surpri[sed. ((Noise ofpeople talking.)) 969 SAM S: [You couldn't hear yourselftalk with 970 my grandchildren there. 971 ((Noise ofsome people laughing.)) 972 JAMES D: 1 think Friday night is a sort ofuh (0.8) ((everyone speaking at 973 once))=a family get-together. And 1 think that the= 974 SAM S: =The family hasn't met in years. 975 MEL D: 1 think first of ail the President if he wants to but uh 1 think it' s 976 up to him to say who meets on Friday night (1.2) because 977 there's a- [there's a- there's a feeling 978 JAMES D: [1 think 1 think (xxxx) 979 MEL D: No, there's a statement that uh the ((he starts to smile)) mana- 980 management members here might think that fifteen members of 981 the family meet. (0.8) l've been the only one there= 982 JAMES D: =Twelve ofwhich [are children. 983 MEL D: [Is that correct. l've l've never seen Arnold 984 there, l've never seen Nathan there, l've never seen Morris 985 there in the last five years (.) so 986 ((people responding.)) 987 MEL D: 1 don't know what they think (xxxx) 988 ((people still talking at the same lime.)) 989 SAM S: 1 don't even need to have a family get-together. 990 (1.0) 991 (): This is true. 992 SAM S: One man (l.0) my own person have a hundred percent control 993 ofthis company. 1 don't have to ask anybody so it's no use even XXIII 994 taUon' about a discussion the the there's no need for a 995 discussion. (1.0) Uh (1.0) 1 don't need anybody's approval= 996 ( ): =No, right! 997 JAMES D: No one is, no one is is denying to you the prerogative ofsaying 998 here 1 have two or three or four or five however many people 999 you have, might have in mind as an ultimate (0.5) successor (.) 1000 but you're gonna be the person who is is gonna make that 1001 decision. First ifit weren't for any other reason is because on 1002 strictly legal grounds, as you just pointed out, you wouldn't 1003 have to ask anybody eise (.) even on a straight Iegai ground you 1004 could say "To hell with ya," ifyou felt so inclined, "l'Il make 1005 that decision personally" and everybody here knows that. .hh 1006 But you being the kind ofperson (.) you a:re (0.5) 1 think are 1007 unlikely to make that decision of, a decision of that magnitude 1008 without referring (.) to the family. (1.0) But the fact is, ifyou're 1009 willing to accord then (.) because of the (.) family ties, the 1010 matter of discussion on a rational basis (.) with the family (.) we 1011 think that it should be done (.) on a rational basis also with your 1012 senior executives. 1013 (0.2) 1014SAM S: That's why you're here tonight= 1015HARRY S: =Well eh Jim that's in view of the eh (0.5) we agree to adj oum 1016 at nine > 1 don't think there's much sense in starting the next 1017 item on the agenda, which is succession < (.) With a your 1018 agreement, 1 suggest we adjoum (.) here and now gives us a 10 19 good night' s rest. 1020( ): (xxxx) finish it off in ten minutes. 1021 ((Laughter and people talking.)) 1022HARRY S: Huh? 1023( ): 1 think we'll ail sleep on it. . 1024HARRY S: AIright, we'll ail sleep on it. (0.5) ((Somebody starts to speak.)) 1025 (1.0) 1026HARRY S: Alright the (.) meeting is adjoumed 'til tomorrow moming at (.) 1027 nine o'clock when we'll discuss succession. 1028 ((Everyone starts to leave the table. Cut away to the next scene, 1029 the execulives relaxing in the evening at the bar, sitting down to 1030 play bridge or talking to each other on the sofas.)) 1031 ((Title: Part three-Succession.)) 1032Voiceover: ((/he Palomino sessions ran late but there was lime before bed 1033 for a hand of bridge, an appropriate game for the /ast night of 1034 the conference.)) 1035( ): ((At the bridge table.)) Sam? 1036 (1.0) 1037(): Vou deal. 1038 (1.5) 1039JAMES D: 1 think it's a great great shame to let a man (xxxx) play with his 1040 wife. XXIV 1041 (0.5) 1042JAMES D: They probably they [probably play a lot of bridge together. 1043HELEN S: [We fight we fight? ((laughing.)) 1044Voiceover: ((In bridge a player may have Iwo objectives, to win by making 1045 his contract or io prevent the opposition /rom winning, which is 1046 another kind ofvictory. The game has rules, which the players 1047 must observe ifthey want to play at ail but it also has 1048 conventions outside the rules, mainly the elaborate system of 1049 bidding by which the players signal the strengths and 1050 weaknesses oftheir hands. Through bidding a way has been 1051 found for players to say indirectly what the rules won 't allow 1052 them to say openly. In the succession discussion, which ended 1053 the Palomino Conference, there were some who hoped to win 1054 and others who merely hoped to prevent someone else /rom 1055 winning. No participant could propose himselfor criticize 1056 another candidate directly. So more indirect ways had to be 1057 found ofsaying things, which could not be said out loud)) 1058 ((People sitting on the sofas discussing what happened at the 1059 meeting quietly.)) 1060Voiceover: ((/'0 make matters worse, the exercise had to take place under 1061 the eyes ofSam Steinberg, a man who none ofthem could afford 1062 to offend and whose choice might already have been made.)) 1063 ((Cut away to the scene ofthe continuation ofthe meeting the 1064 next morning.)) 1065HARRY S: The task then is (2.2) based on your reading (.) of the 1066 organization reports (.) submitted to the President (.) the pre- 1067 reading provided and the discussion outlined (.) detennine (0.8) 1068 what procedures (.) and criteria (.) should he used (.) for the < 1069 selection of the chief officers. > (0.8) Now (.) on criterion and 1070 (1.0) procedures, 1 thought you would find helpful that you have 1071 this in your kits (1.0) the extract from the ... ((talk covered over by 1072 voiceover)). 1073 Voiceover: ((/'he method adopted was to describe an ideal candidate for 1074 the Presidency. By proposing specifie criteria, each member 1075 hoped to point towards the candidate he favored or away /rom 1076 those he did not. On one point there was almost total 1077 agreement, the winner had to be someone in this room.)) 1078 ((Harry S. starts to write on the newsprint.)) 1079 SAM S: °1 want yous to listen me out for a minute. ° (0.8) Right now, 1080 one of the (0.2) large st organizations in our field (0.5) have 1081 recentlyas you alilmow appointed a fusident (2.0) and from 1082 my point ofview (1.0) it's a sorry spectacle (1.0) in an 1083 organization so vast (2.0) with the years of experience and the 1084 (1.0) you know how (0.5) how large an organizatioll that is (0.5) 1085 doing the business in the billions and the this is what they have 1086 to end up with (1.0). So uh (1.0) just tryin' to tell you that uh 1087 we got to give serious consideration (1.0) and u:hhjust uh l'm xxv 1088 just exasperated to to to think (1.0) how 1:1 would have felt if 1 1089 was a: substantial shareholder in that organization (0.5) as to 1090 what they (l.5) had to resort to in tenns of a President. 1091 HARRY S: Are you really sorry about that? [1 think= 1092 SAM S: [No but 1 am xxx 1093 HARRY S: =1 think ofChurc[hill's= 1094 SAM S: [This is for our own people. 1095 HARRY S: =ofChurchill's remarks (0.5) that the Israeli secret weapon (.) 1096 was the Arab ability to fight. 1097 ((Everybody laughing al length.)) 1098 HARRY S: One of our competitive advantage may he exactly that kind of 1099 appointment that our competitor. 1100 ((Laughter continues.)) 1101 SAM S: What you're saying is that we're hetting on our competitor's 1102 ignorance and not on our own skills and abilities. 1103 HARRY S: Not (xxxx) people ofthat ability. 1104 ((People's laughler still continues.)) . 1105 SAM S: You can see, you can see the talent we possess (2.0) by Harry's 1106 definition. 1107 ((Sorne laughter continues and sorne people talking.)) 1108 JOHN P: Uhm (1.0) One l'd like to propose is that (.) we make ref- it's 1109 made reference to in the uh (0.8) material you've just read as 1110 well, the n:eed to maint:ain a dyn:amic (0.5) organization and to 1111 do so implies that (0.8) uh this character has to be established 1112 at the top, so the (0.5) certainly the kind ofindividual who 1113 would give leadership to this organization ought to have a 1114 dynamic, forceful, initiating an' (0.5) risk-taking (1.0) qualities 1115 (.) that are needed to ensure the dynamism (.) is maintained. 1116 HARRY S: AIright uh you're saying uh the attributes, would they he 1117 dynamic ((writing on the newsprint.)) (2.5). Would you say 1118 "forceful," John? ((Still writing.)) 1119 JOHN P: Forceful, initiating and risk-taking 1120 HARRY S: Dynamic, forceful ((writing)) (2.5) initiating and risk-taking. 1121 (3.0) 1122 ( ): 0 As contrasted with mechanical, repetitive, dull, aimless and 1123 backward looking.o 1124 (4.0) 1125 HARRY S: The individual chosen should have proven (0.5) in the light of 1126 his past performance ((reading.frorn the newsprint)) (2.5) uh 1127 evidence of dynamism, forcefulness (0.2) taking initiative (0.5) 1128 and risk-taking. 1129 (2.5) 1130 HARRY S: Bill? 1131 BILL H: He should have a broad gr:asp of(.) business (.) in general (1.0) 1132 and our business in particular. 1133 ((Harry S. writing on newsprint.)) 1134 (10.5) XXVI 1135 HARRY S: Yes, Irving? 1136 IRVING L: Harry, 1 think he should have (.) a very outstanding record of 1137 bis personaluh pbilosophy and personal mode of living and all 1138 the rest of it that goes with it. 1139 (1.2) 1140 HARRY S: You wanna qualify what kind of philosophy? 1141 IRVING L: WeIl ... l'mjust [saying ... 1142 HARRY S: [You're not saying nine, nine= 1143 IRVING L: =He's got to be rather c1ean living, let's put it that way 1144 ((Sorne laughter.)) 1145 HARRY S: Clean living?= 1146 IRVING L: =That's right. 1147 JAMES D: That's not the words l'd like to see going up on the paper 1148 ((Laughter and people talking.)) 1149 (): A pure blooded (.) Canadian boy. 1150 ((Laughter and people talking.)) 1151 ( ): A little Alger. 1152 JAMES D: You're trying to disqualify yourselffor future 1153 ((Loud laughs.)) 1154 ( ): Just put down Horatio Alger 1155 (1.0) 1156 HARRY S: ((Laughing)) 1 am not going to ask wbich one ofus matches xxx 1157 (0.5) 1158 IRVING L: A lot ofintegrity 1159 MEL D: Well, let let Irving make bis point. May be the word [xxx 1160 IRVING L: [No, the 1161 point l'm trying to make is and 1 don't want to mention names 1162 'cos we're on film here and everything else.hh but there are ex- 1163 examples in the industry ofleading industrialists (.) who uh (.) 1164 because oftheir own personal uh uh meanderings or difficulties 1165 or what have you are just not running their industries. 1166 (0.2) 1167 OSCAR P: They get into that position and then they start fooling around= 1168 JAMES D: =Maybe they don't start fooling around 'til they get (xxxx) ((he 1169 laughs.)) 1170 (0.2) 1171 IRVING L: That's right Oscar. 1172 HARRY S: Irving, do you hear what you're saying? 1173 (1.0) 1174 IRVING L: What 1 said 1175 ((Sorne people talking at once.)) 1176 HARRY S: High personal standards of ethics and mor:ality. Will, will 1177 that'Il do it? 1178 ((Sorne laughter.)) 1179 IRVING L: No problem 1180 JAMES D: 1 think l'd knock out "c1ean-living," it's it's- 1181 ((Sorne laughter.)) XXVII 1182 BILL H: Accepted accepted as a leader (0.8) by bis peers. 1183 (3.0) 1184 HARRY S: ((Writing.)) Accepted as a leader by bis peers. 1185 (4.0) 1186 HARRY S: Does this man exist this side ofheaven? 1187 (): No 1188 ( ): Sam Steinberg. 1189 (0.5) 1190 ( ): Do you wanna a raise? 1191 ((Everybody laughing.)) 1192 ((Three or four persons talking at the same lime.)) 1193 HARRY S: As ofright now l'm the oruy guy that fits and one more 1194 statement and 1'11 be out of the (xxxx) 1195 ((Everybody laughing.)) 1196 (2.0) 1197 IRVING L: ((Raising his hand)) Harry, 1 think he's got to be uhm hungry in 1198 the sense that not foodwise (.) but in the sense that the man who 1199 must (.) feel (.) an urgency, a motivation and so on to n'uh to 1200 build the business, to improve the business and so on. 1201 HARRY S: Does this capture hungry, Irving?= 1202 IRVING L: =Yeh, itdoes, 1 guess. 1203 (): Hungry for success. 1204 (2.5) 1205 SAM S: Sorne ten years ago (1.2) met a chap who was in my class in 1206 public school (0.8) and he said to me:e? (1.0) that at one t:ime 1207 the kids got together (1.8) and the person that they singled out 1208 who was least likely to succeed was me. 1209 (1.0) 1210 SAM S: This is what he told me 1211 ((Contained laughter.)) 1212 SAM S: It's a fact.(0.5) The other was 1 was telling sorne of the boys uh 1213 (1.0) oh sorne about uh (0.5) thirty years ago there was a 1214 Liberty magazine (1.0) and they had an article (0.5) the new 1215 sciences that were being introduced in terms of selecting (1.0) 1216 uh people for employment in the organization. And they had a 1217 point system (.) and they'd rate them on the years of education, 1218 years ofexperience and the various qualifications added up and 1219 he' d had to have a certain point rating in order to get a job. 1220 (1.0) So finally after uh three or four pages ofthis it cornes to 1221 the end of the uh story, the editor was asked or the person was 1222 asked "WeIl, what about the fellow who doesn't qualify at a:Il?" 1223 He said "WeIl you don't have to worry about bim, he'll end up 1224 being the boss." (0.5) So, evidently this happens to be the story 1225 ofmy life? 1226 (2.8) 1227(): Uh ... Harry [xxx 1228 SAM S: [The point l'm trying to make is that it doesn't XXVIII 1229 always follow (0.5) that (.) person must have all these 1230 qualification to uh to he able to perfonn. 1231 (0.8) 1232 ARNOLD S: 1 think what we wanna do is to (.) in a sense direct our own\ 1233 destiny and it goes back again to the (.) story that my father tells 1234 (.) of(.) picking only six footers (.) ifyou gonna train people to 1235 play basketball only start with six footers 'cos at least you know 1236 you're not gonna- you're you're- That doesn't mearr you can't get 1237 a four foot uh basketball player who could be good. But why 1238 take, why take the chance, you might as weIl train the six 1239 footers to start with- Your chances of success 1240 ((Everyone talking at once.)) 1241 SAM S: l'mjust saying 1242(): 1 think what Arnold is trying to say 1243 SAM S: You're making a good point. 1244(): You're making a very good point. 1245 SAM S: That you can't go by the exception. 1246(): That's right. 1247(): 1 agree. 1248 HARRY S: (I don't buy that.) The only message is (that the man xxx) 1249 whether it's Truman (1.5) «coughing)) or whether it's Trudeau, 1250 how the man changes when he assumes office and changes in 1251 some direction [xxx. 1252 ARNOLD S: [The reason why hewas so good was 'cos he 1253 was a retailer you see and that's how [xxx 1254 [«Ioud laughs.)) 1255 JAMES D: No but the Harry, Harry (0.5) you've ((people talking at once)) 1256 you've, you've thrown, you thrown something on the on the 1257 table which 1 think bas a disturbing effect (0.2) What you're 1258 really saying is (.) there's no sense in going through all this 1259 because the job changes the man (such that) it goes out of the 1260 windowanyway and this we know. 1261 ((People talking at once.)) 1262 HARRY S: II am saying use every criterion you h:ave (.) and so on but 1263 hear in mind (xxxx) statement (.) that something happens when 1264 the man (.) assumes responsibility= 1265( ) =We know that 1266 JAMES D: =Which is incalculable, so why bring it out? 1267 ((People talking at once.)) 1268 JOHN P: We've already agreed that the candidates for any ofthese key 1269 assignment (.) are those who are best qualified (.) whether these 1270 individuals are (.) in the organization (.) or outside the 1271 organization=We shouldn't close our eyes to the possibility 1272 (0.5) that uh more qualified people (0.5) meeting these 1273 candidates (.) meeting these criteria better than (.) our internai 1274 resources. 1275 (0.8) XXIX 1276 HARRY S: Are you saying look both inside and outside the organization? 1277 JOHN P: 1-1 l'm saying we shouldn't exclude (0.5) looking outside the 1278 organization (0.5) ifwe (0.8) in trying to find the right 1279 candidate. 1280 JAMES D: That's a kind of a negative, questionable procedure isn't it 1281 ((People talking at once.)) 1282 JAMES D: We should look inside to see ifthere are people= 1283 JOHN P: =No, 1 don't agree. 1 think that uh looking inside would be 1284 myopia. 1 think we oughta (.) look beyo:nd at the same time. 1285 (1.8) 1286 JOHN P: Here's a statement that 1 think is worth considering 1287 "Promotional ofintemal personnel into key executive 1288 assignments without regard to the qualifications of those outside 1289 the organization who may be of superior superior caliber (0.2) 1290 can result in promoting mediocrity (.) The best qualified man 1291 for a key position may not be available in the firm and therefore 1292 a sounder approach would be to look [outside" 1293 [((Several people talking at once.)) 1294(): May not be available= 1295 JOHN P: ="This may be a particular- particularly necessary when a 1296 decision is made to go in a new business and so forth 1297 >Furthermore, when promoting from within has been a long 1298 established practice the risk is increased that the vitality of the 1299 organization will become sapped and those promoted tend to 1300 imitate their bosses rather than to introduce new ideas"< 1301 [Now ((People talking at once.)) 1302 SAM S: [You said you spoke ofwhen you're going to a new business 1303 (too) now how much qualification ((People talking.))= 1304( ): =The word was ''not available" 1305 ((People talking.)) 1306 JOHN P: Can 1 finish?= 1307 IRVING L: =1 tell you why 1 don't agree. Because it sort of indicates to 1308 your people (.) that ifthis is your attitude, striving for 1309 excellence in this way, now what happ:ens every time you have 1310 a job through your organization. If you want better, you can 1311 always find better, nobody here is the best in his capacity in the 1312 world 1 guarantee you or even in North America (.) and that's 1313 from Sam Steinberg right through every job here. So then 1314 people say "What's the use ofworking and everything else 'cos 1 1315 can 't seem to better myself, they always find a guy in Alabama 1316 and then they come with a fella from Washington and so on and 1317 so forth" And you never really build a culture and sort of (.) 1318 family, quotation marks (.) into your organization 1319 [((People talking.)) 1320 ARNOLD S: [1 think there's no question, John that we could fmd someone 1321 more capable (.) than anybody in this company. ((People talking 1322 at once.)) For any standing any position in the company= xxx 1323( ): =Right! 1324 ARNOLDS: For any position that you've have have have put your own 1325 people into (0.2) if you went outside you would have gotten 1326 better people (0.2) for every job that's ever have been filled in 1327 this company we could have found better people if we went 1328 outside ifwe did it long enough, hard enough, (.) we would 1329 have found better people= 1330 JACK L: =1 dunno (0.5) 1 dunno (.) how many more people in this 1331 industry are better than we as a group. 1332 HARRY S: Well 1 think what Arnold is saying [here ... 1333 SAM S: [Now he added the group, 1334 you see (xxxx) 1335 ((People talking.)) 1336ARNOLD S: From an academic point ofview, Jack, 1 think (.) ifwe searched 1337 the world we'd find someone [better ... Okay? 1338 JACK L: [Okay, 1 agree= 1339 HARRY S: =1 think what Arnold is [saying .. 1340 ARNOLD S: [That doesn't mean that for every job 1341 we must search the world. 1342( ): Okay 1343 ARNOLD S: It's impractical and l'm not sure it's the best possible 1344 [approach to running a company. 1345 JAMES D: [1 think (0.5) the the Can 1 say something now?= 1346 HARRY S: =Yeah, well 1 wanna say something harking back to the role 1 1347 play as professor and a rabbi and so on 1348 ((People laughing.)) 1349(): (xxxx) 1350 HARRY S: This is to give you part ofmy personal style offeedback, 1351 gentlemen, >here it is< 1352( ): (xxxx) 1353 HARRY S: U::h well the point i:s (.) uh Levitt in his book on Managerial 1354 Psychology, ifyou hadn't read it 1 recommend it highly to you. 1355 He is now talking (.) he's saying where we go through 1356 problem-solving talking about the best solution he is now 1357 saying that this is a lot of crap (.) in economic words, he's 1358 saying in effect (.) he gives the example of a man looking for a 1359 used car (.) and he says the man (.) in Montreal is not going to 1360 reply and investigate every single used car (.) nor is he going to 1361 visit every single used car lot in Montreal, he says the guy will 1362 take a lifetime to do it (.) So he now says (.) that you take a 1363 "satisficing" solution that' show he calls it, that is one which 1364 meets the needs of the time (.) and the best one that you come 1365 up with in the circumstances (.) 1 now withdraw from my role of 1366 professor and rabbi and become chairman. 1367 ((People laughing.)) 1368 GUY N: Wouldn't the risks be a lot greater actually to (0.5) ifthis were 1369 to be the case to hire [somebody from outside. XXXI 1370 SAM S: [xxx observed in our industry (.) where 1371 They found it necessary (.) to seek in the outside, now we've had 1372 a series of presidents changing over like you'd churn butter. 1373(): That's right 1374 SAM S: [When They go outside. 1375 JACK L: [(xxxx), Colonial Colonial= 1376 SAM S: =1 could name any number, when They went outside They were 13 77 just like churning butter (.) The only time 1 see that happen (.) 1378 where the financial interests (.) [are such that= 1379(): [Forced forced 1380 SAM S: =That's right forced! Otherwise uh They loose their shirt 1381 (1.0) 1382 SAM S: Like Safeway with McGovem at that time (xxxx)= 1383 ((People talking.)) 1384 JOHN P: =What we're really saying is that thought he given to the (.) 1385 possibility that there are superior qualifications outside the 1386 company. 1387 (1.5) 1388 JOHN P: °Soo 1389 (0.5) 1390 HARRY S: l've written halfa statement on the board. (2.0) "Seek out best 1391 man bearing criteria in mind, look" (.) and where you're divided 1392 (.) is it fIfSt outsi- fIfSt inside and then outside or are you 1393 looking at one shot (0.2) everywhere (.) 1 think this is a 1394 question, which you have to resolve= 1395 JAMES D: =1 think we all agree, except John, we look inside (.) 1396(): Yeah, that's right. 1397 (2.8) 1398 HARRY S: Any further suggestions or steps on (.) procedure? 1399 (1.0) 1400 JACK L: My conviction is, that it's not onl:y (.) uh this group that is 1401 concemed (0.5) The group below us (.) are very very concemed 1402 about the leadership function (.) of the company and the po-xxx 1403 position we're talking about (0.8) They have certain 1404 assumptions of certain people that They would not (.) wanna he 1405 associated as a leader. (1.0) And we must take (.) their opinions 1406 (0.2) into consideration (.) when we deliberate. 1407 (0.5) 1408 ARNOLDS: You don't think that the people in this roo:m reflect the opinions 1409 properly reflect in their discussions with the President the views 1410 of the people below Them? 1411 JACK L: 1 did (.) 1 did, 1 did in my document. 1412 ((People talking at the same lime.)) 1413 SAM S: Vou say now you do?! 1414(): Yeah! 1 do 1415 JACK L: 1 do. 1416 SAM S: Okay. XXXII 1417 IRVING L: 1 do too. 1 don't think (.) anything could be served by the 1418 President running around (.) and asking, soliciting opinions. 1419 ((People talking at the same time.)) 1420 SAM S: 1 can't ((noise ofa person tapping on a glass))=1 would 1 would 1421 1 would like ((noise ofa person tapping on a glass.)) 1422 JAMES D: The significant thing is that each person in this room be free to 1423 advance his own feelings directly and privately to the President 1424 (.) so that the President gets a feedback ofwhat [everyone here= 1425(): [xxx 1426 JAMES D: =FEELS ABOUT HIS PEERS without my having to say "1 1427 don't think Sam Gerstel should get the job, out on the table." 1428(): That's right. 1429 (1.5) 1430(): Sam? 1431 ((People speaking at once.)) 1432 IRVING L: 1 would say that 1433( ): He doesn't really mean that= 1434 JAMES D: =1 don't mean that. 1435(): Those were yOUf exact words. 1436 JAMES D: 1 didn't mean it 1 didn't mean it= 1437 IRVING L: =Sam (0.5) Sammy, you've put in years (.) you put in and look 1438 what happen here. 1439 ((Extensive laughter.)) 1440 JAMES D: A hypothetical example, Sam (.) 1441 SAM G: A bad choice a bad choice. 1442 ((Extensive laughter and talk/rom a number ofpeople.)) 1443 ((Harry S. is writing on the newsprint.)) 1444(): (xxxx) it would be helpful to yOUf (xxxx) 1445(): It's not compulsory that you speak to (xxxx) 1446 HARRY S: The statement is- statement we have up there is (.) "The 1447 President at his discretion (.) will consult with members ofhis 1448 management group." And 1 think in part the President aIready 1449 has conveyed this that anyone ofyou (0.5) should feel free to (.) 1450 see him on this matter= 1451(): That's right 1452 HARRY S: °alrightCO) ... 1453 [((Two people talking.)) 1454 JAMES D: [The two are not compatible in my mind=this is why 1 raised the 1455 question .hh Obviously, ifhe consults (.) say with the first three 1456 people the~ (.) and he never consult~ with the next three (.) the 1457 next three, ifthey find out that he's consulted with the tirst three 1458 are not gonna feel very free to go in and voluntarily on their 1459 own o:lIer any opinions. 1460 (0.5) 1461 JOHN P: Funny, 1 wouldn't hesitate 1462 (2.0) 1463 JOHN P: 1 think we got (.) the kind of (.) uh a relationship here uh whether XXXIII 1464 it's up there or not [and 1, though if! have something to say- 1465 SAM S: [l'm satisfied in my mind that 1 don't know 1466 anybody here who wouldn't ((almost laughing)) be wouldn't feel 1467 free to come and talk to me when they think it' s uh. 1468(): 1 never have yet 1469SAM S: What? 1470( ): 1 never have yet. 1471 ((People laughing.)) 1472 JAMES D: 1 think that's yOUf answer. 1473 HARRY S: Any further suggestions on (.) procedure? 1474 (5.0) 1475 JACK L: 1 don't think we can go much further (0.5) And personnel 1476 selection is a one alone (.) u:h responsibility (0.2) so this 1477 becomes (0.5) with all the information= 1478 SAM S: =1 can tell you, you've made it very easy for me. 1479 JACK L: We made it very c1ear to you what kind ofperson we want. 1480 JAMES D: As as easy as we cano 1481(): That's right 1482 JACK L: As hard as we cano 1483 MEL D: We've made it very easy for you (.) We've narrowed the choice 1484 down to fifteen people? (.) What betier can you expect than 1485 that? 1 mean all fifteen are candidates and here (.) we made it 1486 simple, it could have been a choice of a thousand. 1487 1.5) 1488( ): °Pifty?O 1489 (4.5) 1490 HARRY S: Are we going to talk about time dimension here? (0.2) no? 1491(): Yeah 1= 1492( ): =1 think we should= 1493( ): =Absolutely. 1494 ((Afow people talking at once.)) 1495(): Would you expand that, John? 1496 SAM S: 1 think that this this decision will be taken (.) in a period, may 1497 he three to six months 1498 (0.5) 1499 SAM S: Not sooner. 1500 (1.0) 1501(): Three to six months?= 1502 SAM S: =That's right. 1503 (1.0) 1504 ARNOLD S: You're saying it will he at the earliest three months at at the 1505 latest six months, or at at the earliest three to six months? 1506 (0.5) 1507 SAM S: You put it weIl, at the earliest three months at the latest six. 1508 (4.5) 1509 JACK L: In my opinion that's too long. But uh (.) 1 think that uh (0.5) the 1510 organization as a whole is waiting (0.5) And 1 think three to six XXXIV 1511 months is uh a long time for uh after going through what we've 1512 done (.) now 1 was thinking about 1 would have had hoped (.) 1513 that the final decision will be within three months, not three to 1514 six months. 1515 SAM S: Well you don't happen to be the- (0.5) in my position, sitting in 1516 my seat, so 1517 (2.0) 1518 JAMES D: There's another aspect 1 think we should discuss briefly (0.2) 1519 We have a very sad history (.) ofleaking out (.) all kinds of(.) 1520 uh semi-official (scutterbug) (.) rumor through the organization, 1521 which (.) again 1 think does more harm than good. 1522( ): You mean (xxxx) the President? 1523 JAMES D: 1 beg your pardon? 1524(): (xxxx) the President? 1525 JAMES D: No, l'm not concemed with that (0.5) ((people speaking at 1526 once)) But 1 do think that we we should have sorne consensus 1527 (.) as to what we want to say to our subordinates about what 1528 went [on here. 1529( ): [Issue a diplomatic communiqué. 1530 (1.5) 1531(): A frank and open discussion ((Iaughing)) (xxxx) 1532 MEL D: No, 1 think Jim raised a very good point, we ought to= 1533 JAMES D: =The rumor mill will he churning at a frantastic rate with all of 1534 us up here (.) [for three days. 1535 MEL D: [Well, everyone knows we're al1 up here. 1 mean 1536 do we go back and tell our people uh (0.5) what the topics we 1537 discussed and so on? It's a very vital issue. 1538 ((People talking at once.)) 1539(): There are only four items on the agenda. Why not list that there 1540 are the items xxx 1541 JAMES D: 1 would say uh communiqué worded something like this "That 1542 the President and the top executives of the company have met 1543 for the last uh two and half days (0.2) three days whatever (.) is 1544 at Palomino Lodge in uh (.) Laurentians and u::h uh and have 1545 conducted an extensive review of the (.) uh current situation of 1546 the company with particular reference to its future uh and and 1547 this discussion included, such subjects as professional 1548 management and" and itemize the four topics and stop right 1549 there. Say nothing more. 1550(): That's right. Very good. 1551 ((l'he meeting is adjourned)) 1552 Voiceover: ((Four months after the Palomino Conference ended, Sam 1553 Steinberg announced the appointment ofhis son-in-Iaw, Mel 1554 Dobrin, as President, and, in the months following his 1555 appointment, a major change took place in the top management 1556 structure ofthe company. Jack Levine was promoted to 1557 Executive Vice Presidentofall the company's retail operations xxxv 1558 and Arnold Steinberg became Executive Vice President, 1559 Administration and Finance. 1560 The thirteen-man management committee, which had been the 1561 advisory body to Sam Steinberg and, which had taken part in 1562 the Palomino Confèrence, gave way to three smaller 1563 committees; a seven-man President's committee under Mel 1564 Dobrin, a retail committee under Jack Levine and an 1565 administration committee under Arnold Steinberg. lt was a 1566 compromise; the case against a family appointment had been 1567 lost but the argument for strong Executive or Group Vice- 1568 Presidents and a decentralization ofauthority from the 1569 President had apparently been won.)) 1570 ((Shot ofSam Steinberg and his grandson getting into his 1571 chauffeured limousine to depart Palomino.)) 1572( ): So long ail, cherio. 1573 Voiceover: ((With Sam Steinberg's retirementfrom the Presidency and the 1574 new team in place, many ofthe problems, which had led to the 1575 cal/ing ofthe Palomino Conference, seemed to be resolved ln 1576 the next four years, the corporation 's sales doubled to over a 1577 billion dollars. lt shares rose from a low ofeleven dol/ars in 1578 1969 to around twenty dollars in 1974. But for ail this, a 1579 fondamental aspect ofthe business had not changed, ((Shot of 1580 the car driving o.ff)) Sam Steinberg was still Chairman ofthe 1581 Board Long after the Palomino Conference ended, il was 1582 evident that ultimate power and the dominant influence on the 1583 business stil/lay where they hadfor over fifty years.)) 1584 SAM S: ((Speakingfrom the back seat ofhis car.)) 1 think it's (.) 1585 hannful to the business ifyou don't give it the drive and the 1586 energy (0.5) you've got to stay with it. It's not enough to have 1587 good ideas and everything else but you've got to bring them 1588 into heing. You've got to give somebody else the opportunity 1589 to do that (0.5) l'Il always he a driving force whether l'm (.) 1590 President of the company or not. (0.8) Always. 1591 END OF THE TAPE