Group Dynamics & Power Structures: Toward a Greater Understanding of the Line-Staff Relationship Within the Austin Fire Department By: Kevin L. Baum AN APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT POLJTICAL SCIENCE 5397) SUBMl7TED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE SOLJTHYEST TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLm FOR THE REQUIRETblEMS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION {Fall 1997) Acknowledgments This study represents, hands down the most galactic intellectual enterprise I have ever undertaken. Oftentimes, over the course of the past year whilst I was engrossed with this research, I wodd find myself at wits' end, fianticaIly grasping at the fraying tethers that conn~tedme to reality. It was at these times that I looked to friends and mentors for guidance and support. While I refie it is a bit extravagant to dedicate a page within this study to individual acknowledgments, I feel I would be remiss -- indeed, downright ungrateful -- to not publicly and formally recognize the people who have played such a key role in this project. Thus, please indulge me as I recognize the conlributions of the following people. I would like to thank acting Fire Chief Gary Warren for giving me the freedom and access to conduct this research within the Austin Fife Department. Chief Warren's support of this research and his willingness to work with me is a strong testimony to his appreciation of higher education and its value to the fire service. I owe a debt of gratitude to all my focus group participants who so generously gave of their time, energy, thoughts and feelings. Participating in a focus group can be intimidating, especially one that explores difficult issues such as inn-organizational conflict. My focus group participants were not only wiling to reveal their personal thoughts on such difficult topics, but also extended to me the wonderful gesture of taking the activity seriously. Tdy the backbone of this research, this project would not exist if it wasn't for the enthusiastic participation of the focus pupmembers. To Gwen, my best friend and domestic pmer, upon whose shoulders so much angst, woe and boo-hooing was wrought, what can I say? Those things that are closest to your heart are always the most difficult fa express and I can't find the words to thank you for enduring the sleepless nights as I chattered on about groups, power and conflict. You are absolutely the most patient and supportive prson I how. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I must thank Dr. Patricia Shields, my academic advisor and -- perhaps &own to her -- my mentor. If there is anything good to be said about this work, fully 50% of the credit must go to Dr. Shields. This research may be my brainchild, but it stands on intellectual grounding and academic frameworks that Dr. Shields provided. Without a doubt, Dr. Shields possesses the most phenomenal intellect I have ever encountered. Thanks, Dr. Shields, for ushering me into an entirely new realm of academic endavor. K Baum December, 1997 Table of Contents Page List of Tables and Graphs iii List of Appendices v Chapter 1 . Introduction 1 The Grangerfords and Shephedsons 1 Caveat 2 Preview of the Chapms 3 2. Statement of the Problem 5 What's the Trouble Abut? 5 Presumption of Conflict, 8 Sm- 9 3. Literature Review 10 Introduction to the Literature 10 Organizational Culture 12 CubeDefined 12 Culture and Conflict 17 Group Dynamics 19 Group(s) Defined 19 Group Formation 2 1 Group Mobilization & Conflict: Contact and Interaction 23 Group Mobilization & Conflict Goal Inconsistencies 25 Group Mobilization & Ca nflict: Competition Over Resources 27 The Movement of Group Conflict in Organization-28 Power Structures & Power Asymmetries 30 Power Defined 30 Power Structures 3 1 Hierarchy 3 1 Workflow Linkages 32 Power Asymmetry & Conflict 34 Fire Service Literature 34 Fire DcpmntStructure 35 Conflict within Fire Service Ocganhtions~36 Linking the Literature to the Research: Summary of the Findings37 Putting it all ~ogether? 8 Conceptual Framework 39 Working Hypotheses 39 WH 1: Group Identification 41 WH 2a & 2b: Goofs & Resources 41 WH 3a, 3b & 3c: Group Ties & Reinforcing Behaviors-42 WH 4: Power 42 Summary 43 Page 4. Methodology 44 Research Method: Field Research 44 Sources of Evidence and Units of Analysis 46 Focus Group 47 Survey 47 Participant as Observer 48 Dwument Analysis 49 Operationalizing the Conceptual Framework 49 WH 1 : Group Ia2ntification 5 1 WH 2a & 2b: Goals & Resources 5 1 WH 3% 3b & 3c: Group Ties & Reinforcing Behaviors-52 WH 4: Power 52 Focus Group 53 Questionnaire 55 summary 58 5. Setting 59 Austin 59 The Fire Depmnt 60 Org&tional Structure 60 Organizational Dynamics 62 Summary 64 6. Findings 66 WH I: Group identification 67 Focus Group 67 Survey 67 WH 2a: Goal Inconsistencies 68 Focus Group 68 Survey 70 WH 2 b: Resource Competition 72 Focus Group 72 Survey 74 WH 3a & 3b: Within and Between-group Ties 76 Focus Group 76 Survey 77 WH 3c: Self-Reinforcing Behaviors 8 1 Focus Group 8 1 Survey 85 WH 4: Power Asymmetries 86 Focus Group 86 Survey 88 Document Analysis 90 Results; Summy 93 7. Conclusions & Summary Remarks 96 Conclusions 96 Implications 99 Summary Remarks 101 Bibliography 103 List of Tables & Graphs Tables Table Page Table 3.1 Conceptual Lineage of Working Hypotheses 40 Tabb 4.1 Operationalization of Worhg Hypotheses 50 Table 4.2 Operationalization of Working Hypotheses in Focus Group 54 Table 4.3 o ration ah ti on of Working Hypotheses in Questionnaire 56 Table 6.1 Line Perception of Goal Compatibility 7 1 Table 6.2 Staff Perception of God Compatibility 7 1 Table 6.3 Mode Responses, Res~wceCompetition 75 Table 6.4 Mode Responses, Group Ties 78 Table 6.5 Mode Responses, Reinforcing Behaviors 85 Table 6.6 Mode Responses, Power Asymmetry 88 Table 6.7 Research Evidence in Support of Working Hypotheses 93 Table A. 1 Line-Staff Responses to Questionnaire, Means Apx. A Table A.2 Line Responses to Questionnaire, Percent Distribution & Mean Apx. A Table A.3 Staff Responses to Questionnaire, Percent Distribution & Mean Apx. A Graphs Grapb Page Graph A. 1 "Information" Apx. A Graph A.2 "Information" Apx. A Chap h A. 3 'Budget" Apx. A Graph A.4 "interaction" Apx. A GraphA.5 "Znmction" Apx. A Graph A.6 'Contact" Apx. A Tables and Graphs, cont Graph Page Graph A.7 "Contact" Apx. A Graph A.8 "Interaction Quality" Apx. A Graph A.9 "Interaction Quality" Apx. A Graph A. 10 LLReciprwitypy Apx. A Graph A. 1 1 LLReipracity" Apx. A Graph A.12 "Stereotype" Apx. A Graph A. 13 "Stereotype" Apx. A Graph A. 14 "Worldlow Linkages" Apx. A Graph A.15 "Meetings" Apx. A Graph A. 16 "Connection Power"- Apx. A List of Appendixes Appendix Appendix A Survey Cover Letter and Questionnaire; Comprehensive Questionnaire ResultsApx.A Appendix B Focus Group Transcript -- Staff Functional Group Apx. B Appendix C Focus Group Transcript -- Line Functional Group Apx. C Appendix D Organizational Chart -- Austin Fire Department Apx. D Appendix E Glossary of Terms Apx. E Chapter One Introduction "Did you want to kill him Buck?" "Well,I be1 i did." "What did k do to pu?" "Him,ht neclcr done nothing ro me?" "Well,~hcn, whal did you want to M'll him for? " "Why,nothing-only it's on account of the feud." ''What was the mublc abour, Buck?-land?" "I reckon maybe--1 don't know ...." Hucklekrry to Buck; Ma& Twain In Mark Twain 's HuckLebeny Finn, in response to Huckleberry's question, Buck can't remember why the Grangerford and S hepherdson families are feuding. With a perplexed look, Buck simply replies, "I don't know...." Presumably, the Grangerford and S hepherdsons have been fighting for so long, no body can remember why -- nor, we are led to believe, dces anybody really care. Apparently, the feud between the two families has taken on a life of its awn. But the inquisitive side of us wonders... what is behind the conflict...why lare the families fighting ? Obviously, this is the question that Twain wants us to ask. Indeed, Twain' s feuding familes provide both graphic and tragic example of the insidious power of causality...of cause/effect run amok. In the conflict between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, the participants' behavior has become habit: they've always been fighting so they simply continue to fight NoWy even asks why anymore. Twain's use of the feuding families is compebg, and makes one wonder to what extent swial behavior itself is the product of habitual patterns and unconscious social dynamics. Indeed, to what extent is social confIict the product of behavioral norms and habits? While this question -- in its ultimate extrapolation -- runs head-long into the perennial debate between determinism and jke will, it nevertheless has practical applications in every day life. In particular, is social behavior rational and based on objective assessments of circumstances? Or, is social behavior the product of a synergistic dysfunction that participants, unwittingly, perpetuate? Like the self-reinforcing feud between the Grangerfords and the S hepherdsons, is conflict promoted through habitual fomof behavior that, over time, become structured into routine? This is an interesting question that should hold a place of importance in the minds of public administrators. While this question may seem overly phdosophical, when distilled, it presents the notion of root causes. For the Public Administrator, root causes suggest a possible explanation behind organizational behavior -- a response to that ever- present question, "What's going on here anyway?" For an organization in conflict, identification of root causes may rev4 the structural or social conditions behind dysfunctional organizational behavior.