DOCINIENT REMISEED 120 906EA 008031AUTHORADerr C BrooklynTITLEMajor - PDF document

1 DOCINIENT REMISEED 120- 906'EA 008.031_A
DOCINIENT REMISEED 120- 906'EA 008.031_AUTHOR,A_,-Derr, C. Brooklyn__TITLE-Major Cause! of Organizational Conflict: Diagnosis..for ActiohwAforking Paper,,.INSTITUTION-Naval Postgraduate School, Ndnterey, Calif._REPORT_ JO-NPS-SSDr-P75062pus DATEJun 75.NOTE-84p..3EDRS PRICENP-S0.83 MC=44.67 Plus Postage.-DESCRIPTORSBibliographies; Conflict; *conflict Resolution;Environgent; Individual Characteristios;-Interpersonal Relationship; *Management;*Organiiation; -Organizational. Development;-.. ______*Organizational Theories; *Organizations (Groups);Role Conflict; Self 'Esteem,IDENTIPIERSChntingency Theory1BSTR1CTSix major causes .of organizational conflict(individual stress, role conflict, power struggles, differentiation,interdependence, and external pressures) are ,delineated; implicationsfor managing these conflicts using collaboration, bargaining, andpower plays are pointed out; a conflict management paradig pointingout which mode of conflict management wor:.s best for which cause ispresented; and literature on organiiational conflict management isreferenced. (luthor /IRT)^-*********************************************************************i*Documents acquired by EAIC,inclade .any iniormal unpublished* materials not available from other sources. ERIC cakes every effor

2 t ** to 'obtain the best copy available.
t ** to 'obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless' items of -marginal** reproducibility ate often encountered:and. this affects the quality** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes availablet* via the EPIC, Document Reproduction Service. (EDRS). EDRS is not'** responsible for the quality of the original documant. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS. are the best that can be cad. from the original,************************************************************************0'1. -N13-39V 150620U $. OgraRTSENT Of pa M.TH.EDUCATIONtvgcsikea.'worm art.INSTITUTE oftaucATKAI7.0S 00Cumeta7 HAS Attu Agra°OutE0 exAm. As A etervED F *OMbrescow.OAOftGArriZATION0010101AT.PG IT OurTSOF IE*00420100.4STATED 00 HOT reCESSAtew.sameseta OF FrOAL irA DONAL IloST.r TV SC OfEOutArrOA PosT1O.100poucvI....+' .0NAVAL POSTGRADUATE ISCROOt"onterey3alifornia:...frir.;..V.MAJOR CAUSES OF .CIRGANIZICIONAL CONFLICT:.DIAliN04.3 FOR ACTIONC. Eiroold.yn DerrJune* 19750Approved for pul=release; distribution unlipited24.1.c-*4. e ..NAVAL PC64113RAIXIATE_SCHCOLIteiterey, CAlifornia.%Bear Adidral lidvin LinderSuperintaident.'10.41.02...JaC)c yc,. Hoisting-ProvostIbis is a conceptual iKaidng.paper. "Reproductiat of all oar partortlxts-repcat # authorized.This _report was prepared-by:C...O.C.

3 atocederromAssociate Professor .of-Marg
atocederromAssociate Professor .of-MargyzementlbReleased, by:dd.fa4,,.r.Dean_ a Reeearchet-na..1 -.UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSWICATUNI Olr THIS PAGE Mei Data Eafklemg.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEvREAD INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORS!I. REPORT HUMMER2. GOVT ACCESSION MO..3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG. HUMBER4. TITLE (***344//do)01'LMAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMM:DIN:MOUS FOli AC1TOM0.-....G. TYPE oenubost A PERIOD"COVeRSOworking paperr11. PERFORMIMOORtPORTtoriszn=1, ru mon(e)--Q. Brooklyn Derr...I.coorns.cropGRANT NUMISCION.O.enrommiaORGANIZATION MAME ANO ADDRESS.,MvalPostgraduateSchool.Monterey, California 93940.10. PROGRAM-EI.ENE NT PROJEC T. TASKAREA It MORK UNIT HUNGERS.4H. CONTINOLyNG OFFICE MAMA AND ADDRESS1.12. -REPORT OAT'Arne, 197513.MUMMEROI PAGES79_.14. .MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 ADDRESS(/' latforied kyles CemitellIng 0111..)-*..o.,IS. SECURECUASS. (el We now)Unclassified'IS*. raltAINICATION7DOINGNAO/NG.OISTRNOuTION STATEMENT PO Nay Raport). Approved far public release; distribution unlimited17. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMOIllor the &bolted antrat1111044.'H Itiffosset kers *.peel)IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES17f.AOSTRACT lemika. a t Ans* aS11 owermay oaf kfronalr,ey Week *grindSix major causes of organizational conflict are delineated; implicationsfor managing these confli

4 cts using collaboration, bargaining and
cts using collaboration, bargaining and power playsare pointed out; a conflict management -paradigm pointing out whichmode ofconflictmanagement works best for which cause is. presented; literature on,organizational conflictramnagapent is referenceIL ,KEY WORDS (0.10*. al 1f 01.1.11 alp 11 seemoy awl Odsoelly y Acir assolneyConflictmanagementorganization deyelornentingalai stressdifferentiationorganizational conflictorganizational -theoryrole conflictsexternal pressuresConflict *ablutioncontingenCy theorypower strugglesinterdependence..PDO I ,427,19 1473-BOOM* Op I NOV IS ISOSSOUCTS0102.014.41401.1ITINGLAsnrim,SiCuRifIr CLAINne *nonOf MS PASCOE*, Dee tafere)Wm../ .30OT.MAJOR CAUSES OF ORGANIZATIONALCONFLICT:"DIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION6(.0C. Brooklyn DerrGraduate School of EducationUCLA0C. BROOKLYN DEAR ".ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR04.NAVAL. POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLMONTEREY. CALIFORNIA939405IV,AOMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES ,4011446.267Wi594O4." ,0s4MAJOR CAUSES.4F.ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTDIAGNOSIS FOR ACTION.-6'The success or failure of any organization is*dependent upon the use of its indigenous, collective..energies.Wheprocedures are clear, the "esprit decorps" is high, and the energy resources of the organi-zation 4é primary and dynamically directed towardsajievement of the organization's ta

5 sk goals, thenthe enterprise is said to
sk goals, thenthe enterprise is said to be productive.The. number1..4$and depth of 'the unmanaged internal-akuleXiernai conflictsdraining its energy resources can generally determinesan organization's place on the scale between success andfalaure.The primary goal of an Organization's management team, II,therefore( is to divert resource energy from,conflict,dissipation .to task-goal implementation.In -Order todo this, ways and means must be found and applied io,,0 .turn conflict energy intoproductitrity, or at least,4.to eliminate the conflict energy draih;linottior words,_ 2.to use conflict-directed organizatiOn energy.positively.This is not a simple maneuver.Organizational.conflict,occurs at the same organizational level ofindividuals and groups, generally responsible for gag-nosing the problems and effecting the cure. ."Doctor13.Ore thyself :.." but in order to do so. it is importantthat "to thine own self be true .;" in terms of theorganization's good, even if.it means sacrificing yourown ambitions, .needs and-satisfactions.In an ideOlogically-oriented organization created.=to handle a war, social unrest or psychic disorder, forexampIel,the sacrifice -of "self" for the_Fgood of theorganization" carries its own,rewards.In a career-,oriented organizationl'however, "

6 self" must be preservedat all costs, or
self" must be preservedat all costs, or 'thete.will be no carof and no rewards.'This is the primary and motivating distinctioneetweencareer`- oriented otganizational conflict and,confli.qt.generated. within an ideologically-oriented orgahization.e-rs-treed-fore-nvIrte gener21 theory about conriictand 'conflict management and while ,valid concepts andmodels at any level of analysis should hold true forother 'levels as well, there are, nevertheless, someuniquefeatures of career- oriented organizational conflict which,when highlighted,:maybe.useful,to students of complex'organizations.-7.ice%7. ioD3.Xpe emphasis in this article is not on the uniqueness..between the iwo.types- of organizations and their conflitts,bAut rather on the major areas of dispute that occur,/IPespecially within career-oriented.organizations..4.4The term "cOnfiicil-(Or "disputel is used in avariety of ways including tension, opposition, competition-11.fighting, incompatible interests; violence and problem:solving.Kenneth W. Thomas and other writers on the subjecthave. pointed out that the term "conflict" hks no clearreferrent.1In this paper, the concept is operationallydefined to mean:energy expended in the enterprise inreaction to a felt tension.The causes of that tension,:their intensity-effect

7 and the posiibil&ties of. coping-with ,c
and the posiibil&ties of. coping-with ,conflict are treated below.-oFIELDS' OF INTEREST AND-SCHOOLS OF. THOUGHTThe management of organizational conflict,as a - special subfieid ofconflict.resolutiOn, has come to be much studied and discuiied,o.,1generally, and experimentally implemented in some institutions onlywithin the past five years, However, "several-.schools of thought on. the subject did begin to evolve:-.seriously- around 1960; the genesis going back to 1950_(as cited in Table I) when major journal articles on. the-,subject first appeared.The table I articles are listedby the professions (fields) they serve.It is interesting...8' I.*to'note that more has beenwritten to business andacademic audiences than ItopraCtitioners in either-.-...education or pulgic.admibistrationt A'/n fact, the; ...Harvard _Business RevIew as.run manymore article's..for practitioners thanthe other comparable journals,and the AdministrativeScience Quarterly Was prihtedfar more articleson this subject for academicians.44r4.,CP4..4 ,4.4V et.4HBR*..1951-73rBUSINESSe)'../.TABLE IS.Journal Articleson:Organizatiohal Conflict.CMR*EDUCATIONTCR*AN*EAU!'..1PUBLICADMINIS-TRATION.PAR*ASQ*ACADEMIC1965-731958 -73,1965-731952-7319517'731965-731950-731956-73JABS*JCR*1965-731957-73Directly-RelatedArti

8 cles*Os19Tangentially-Related "Articles*
cles*Os19Tangentially-Related "Articles*I/..90'3215.6-1621.714 .7124e7:C.7SEE APPENDICES. I 4N11e5s5I4 X4"Directly- related" articlesare thOsie that concen-0trate -on conflict within organizational boundaries andare illustrative of knowledge, skills and strategies(situations) for actually 'managing disputes. "Tangen-tially- related'- articles, on the other hand, may relate..information that has implications for,either whatweknow about varieties of organizational conflicts or howto resolve them.This latter category does not directlyaddress the'subject but adds to our understanding..Table 11 illustrates the point that the realConcentration in'this field is a post-1960 endeavor.Only nine directly-related articles were printed inthe1950's, while sixty-seven articles have appeared since06.that time."Also, some thirty-nine articles were .printed'since 1968 (during the last five years', whereas only.twenty-seVen were in circulation between 1946-968.TheAppendix lists all of the articles considered .by the.author to be tangentially and directly.related;6Lt114 Vr`ABLE IIiaRECTLY-RELATED ART ICLES APPEALEDON TyESE DUES9s.7,"HBR*BUSINESSAM.T*TCR*AN*.953(3)Isis1960P.*N1959EDUCATIONEMS*EAO*.130341ADMINIS-TRATIONPAR'S'ACADEMICJABS*'JCR*1956'1960(2)1963(2)1964.1965)-1967(2)19701971(

9 2)1972(3)1973_-1966 (2)1969(2)197.3Ig681
2)1972(3)1973_-1966 (2)1969(2)197.3Ig6819691970'1972(2)1973(3)f196219681970.197219671972'O1959196019611962,196519661969(4)X9701971..1972(2)r197319651957(2)1963196619676196819691970(2)1972(2) 1970(2)1973° ,.The literature moistly describes opinionsabort thegenesis of biganixational conflict.Since 1065, however,-.iiereetas been an.emphasison effective action- to - .manageit.TheMostpfeValent, aRproach is the collaborative one.asclibedto byorganiiation development ,(OD) pgopodenti:They fioihtout that:. conflict is .neither good nor-bad bUtanormal cons. nonce of orgenitational life; 'that it occurs.ionotiixortasit es-bow it ismanaged.The method 'that leads toffeckivenesp. .1s.Annmbick vier. .tbe_aiipute-as-crentiwer_tension-ineify:vbiob,broiight to the -surface andpobienSolved-,can;l::to innovation, better intettersonal telationships and increasedptcidundifity..2--. ..AMore recent -approach to organizational design oandfo;match. the. internal 'tasks and- structure to the demands ofthe external environment.,This...schOO1 of thodihtcontends....th4t.:theft- is no-"besetway to design "-,he enterpriae, since..-..'-'....,.ippropriate,structuge, for;enanple,is contingentUpon the: task,...-the environment and the needs of individuals and groups workingis,..,the erten.The theor-ya

10 and _empirical research. aupportingda.th
and _empirical research. aupportingda.this. point,- ofView has resultedbodypfliteraturetiown as '"ContingencyTheory.:P3'Qne rule ofthumb is.that:the :pieseriptionfoi .iiprowenent_oustbeappropriateand,therefore, cilia onlybensde-after a careful diasktsis.A 0fIn a Contingency Approach, effective conflict manage-'-,went depends on an in-depth assessment of the major 'causesof the dispute.a.groups against one:-another to achieve vtheir own selfish_Almost any effective action will depend on a valid.and useful diagnosis of the problem(s).Whether theresearch suppOits a more normative (collaborative) OD0view about effective conflict management or a ContingencyTheory approach is a much debated question.Thefollowingdescribes the author's synthesis of What the litetature.-says are the major reasons for conflict==Ehose-Vh2ch-hamr-9.Cimplications for intervention and management-Mich will later beheated with some of his and others' experiences in theapplication of different management procedures.--------MAJOR CAUSES- OF -CONFLICTAccording to the literature, thete are innum erableorigins of otganizational,dispute'and'each.produces'itsown variety of effects.In general, there are six major,-sources:(1) the interpersonal disagreements thatarisewhen one persoh is experiencing individli

11 al stress;(2) theiproblems resuliihg fro
al stress;(2) theiproblems resuliihg from role_conflict, a conditionthat occurs when there is a clash over ohe"s role, in theorganization;. (3) the power struggles that pit persons andobjectives; (4) the misunderstandings and disagreements0.14 10.from differentiation, i.e., the clashes that arise becausepeople approach common problem's from very differentorientations; (51 the interdependence requirements forcollaboration which, if not extensive and balanced.between the parties, cause communication and idteractl'onbreakdoWns which, in,turn, if critical, lead to moreintensive conflicts; and ,A6) the external pressures..4--from forces outside the enterprise that breed internat-Apressures as the _system seeks-ip adapt but not to.disrupt.4its internal order.INDXVIDUAL STRESb.r× the feelings, anxieties and tensions'eyperienced' by a-person are so strong as-to inflUence his,.4.work relationships with others.- The origin of-theseinternal conflicts may or may not bp directly attributedto the vxganitation.. People bring their whole selves. to-,6the workplace and they may he experiencing stress as aresult.of their membership in other organiiationsvoluntary groups, the family) or they may be working'.4through psychological...issues. (e.4.4 depression, par-scnality change, i

12 dentity :crisis).There are, lume4Ver,sev
dentity :crisis).There are, lume4Ver,several causes of individual stress that Ake directlyrelated to the organization.-1.4.;15 -4.Unfulfilled. ExpectationsThere is often an expectation :gap betifeen whatthe employee "Understands. the job or task to be and whatit actually is.In some organizations, recruiters tendto overemphasize favorable aspects- ofa jOb. do thatfalse expectations are generated.This is especiallytrue when the job is professional in nature- (e.g.,requiringtraining,individual expertise that comes from specialthe product. of whidh can only be judged byothers with similar -knoiiledgerbe4414e-the 'conditions-.and emphasis of the position vary according to theorganizations' -needs and thereforelens in'liis field of expertise11.4cannot be-defined.that were high priorityat the time "of recruitment might be downgrded,' forcingthe professional to accept a lesser degree of importancein tie organization, in direct ratio to the problem-solving.emphasis reqUired by. the- Organization.1AIfi other instanc4, "fhe recruit himself is 'so, intent,on achieving his ownobjectives -that he interpretk pherecruiters messages- to 'suit himself.-Be ig later -dieap*-4.pointed to discover that it is not possible to -kedetine._the "grey" areas between his objecti*es and; thoke of'

13 the.organixittion tb"--tris .satisfacti
the.organixittion tb"--tris .satisfaction within the 'alreadyestablished -social 'system.The rate of organizational change in our society1.6.p C.*I%often makes it impossible to keep original promises andcontracts.The needs and objectivesof the organizationmay change dramatically with new technology, new comrpetition and new client wientations.JObs and tasksinside the system must vary accordingly to adapt to.;.deMands _coming from the-external environment.Research by SOhe in4,and-Kottek5stressesAAworker's satisfaction and productivity in hiathatfirst year12..is./argely determined by the degree to which his expectationsand those of the organization match._ kottees work under-scoresthe IMPortinCe' IfOr employee activation) of %matchingexpectations even over the possibility of an uqexpectedbbonusArgyris6; and Levinson7have also stressedthe importance of stated and unstated expectationsas apowerful determinant of organizational behavior..)/ValuesIt is increasingly commonplace for -an employee's'personal values to bein conflict with the norml, .&ccediiesand goals of the enterprise.Employees believe less andless that they should subdrdiate their interest to thoseOf the organization.."The emergence of the notion that a person has a,-7410.greater, moral duty to exercise his

14 judgment against theorganization for the
judgment against theorganization for the good of society is-growing.Forexample, Ralph Nader encourages goveriment employees to 21SO,13.oserve as social watchdogs and report to public scrutiny.groupi, any .ihformaiiollythat conflicts with their inter-pretation of the public good.The cases of DanielElls-Berg releasing the Pentagon.Papers for publicationandJack Anderson reporting the National Security Council 5-discussion of. the India-Pakistaik War "tilt" are illus-.trations of this new 'version of morality.Values gieatly influence individual behavior.They-determine what the individual regards as good, right'and.important.' They govern' his attitudes towards cautesaodissues.They control the way he internalizes, assimilates,and transmits information and concepts.They even serveas guides for his behavior.When a "person exiwiendesa conflict between his values, andthose oforganization,'he undergoes person4l stress that may well affect-hisperformance ancicause difficulties fo-.7';theenterpriie.8..Authority RelationshipsAn individual's psychological tolerance for andresponse to authOrity figures -are,critical.iMpact factors.on.his relationthip-to the organization.Various types,.___ ____-of Subordinates may have different relponiej to thesame toss:.one May work well with one

15 boss_and clash..with anotherLa colleague
boss_and clash..with anotherLa colleague might favor the second bossand fight with the first.The'leadership style of theboss and the disposition of the subordinate towardsauthority peksons in geneial and towards a leadership01.8 I: 14.style in particular, will determine the extent to whichthere exists personal stress in the subordinate thatcould lead to organization conflict.9Some persons have deep, psychological needs todominate or control.Such a type can be impulsive-andeactively seek to overthrow the authority person.' :This'is the so-called "trouble-maker."His insatiable needfor power causes him:to create conflict situations toundermine the-authority- person who dominates him.When Worganizes others against the boss, thefriction he creates within the organization react,._detrimentally upon ale system and ultimately againsthim..Thtre is stilt another type of individual who, alsowants to dominate but he uses amore'passive Modusoperandi.Suffering from a sensenegative feelings towards his boss, his aggression isusually more. hidden and his tactics are more indirect.maniptilative."-He is capable of.spreaaing malicious.golf:sip and of sabotaging the work to make the authorityperson look bpd.-Theethere is the individual whomeeds-to be in controlof his own destiny so that

16 ,any directives by an authorityfigure ar
,any directives by an authorityfigure are negatively viewed.,, His greatest goal is titherto have a well-defined job where he,can do the minimum,:and,have the rest of the time to himself, or .to be in the.capacity of. a 'professiona'l with Maximum flexibility and 9. .autonomy.He- rebels against authority by, a$oding it,J.trying to become as free as possible fram itsi0 A.0He even avoids interaction and participation fort,feakJ...4.s_dthat he will then be forced to follow the7.grOup'..%.-.-,,decision instead of acting independently.Such an employee.,.-%....seeks to build barricades.around himbeIf in order to...enjoy maximum autonomy...ORelative Deprivationip-People-_-frequently-evaluate.theirmell4ming in.relative rather than absolute tetras.They compare them-..-igolves with others and their apparent:.stlinding' in the,)/(Comparidon.determines,theirhappihess.The feiiiing of'being deprived in relation to othirs rather than actually10.being deprived is a state kn9wrlas_nrelatiVeiLdepriation-n-...However, relative deprivatiotrtheoryjoresumed thatthere will be close istociatibn- with a reference giOu0 sothat the degree of similarity between the individual andthe other people.(of.referen6e).:caigtabtished.Theindividual wilt then have to choose whichsetahe prefers.aSuch condi

17 tions exist in a complex organization. _
tions exist in a complex organization. _people?--.4;,4Orework qlosely within th eir own -work, group and they compare(I(I-themiefves as to saliky, work conditions, status, authority,"opportunities,. etc., to others 'in the group,. ;Groups_withinthe system compare themselves' to other groupeCi, _.te.21.....*%-"16.-'Persons and /or-groups in oiganczed. setting :do--,.0experience' relative deprivation.Ain a .result; -.theindividual may be -openly. hostile tO- another mefiber of.-ethe- group,.'-Or the group -hostile to ahothet group.Theymay, feel that the orginization. is taking' .advantage of_thel and that they Should act against it (e'egy-,-..sabotage)---,_.-.or should do less Work.They may simply feel '=hurt ;because .:..they are not -valued- .ait 4-,. as a. consequence,. may withdraw,...performing, only the Minimum required- of iheiti._-i1.!,:.,.e..SelfrEsteem___._.4.1..;...,..Chris' Argyris -maintains that three aspects. ofindividual..personalitk relate to one's -competence- andeffectiVenestifil.First, the person must accept :hlinse-If---,.so. that te- values himself; he is then opentre75Cliiii.--,feedback regarding. his attitudes, -hi:a-work and "sicci0"%products,- -" za,1 to be minimally defensive.-This is because,he values his thcs le self enough to consider crit

18 icism....willingly and accepts suggestio
icism....willingly and accepts suggestions that 'can- improve a partof himself that is '14.cng-iwithout, in, turn,. deyaluing-,, -.,,,-,MO whole-self)...Second?the-:person-Siiskt-get---.9orifitmation,,that his view of reality -on any 'g yen. Iiibleat of ptolgera-Itcompares favorably with the- view :ofhers; this gives.him more self-confidence in his own pep. ions.Finally,,Orthe portion. needs =the .free'dom to 'be ableto``-ess hi*incapabilities and concerns for improving the sis00 that..-21-e- 0..4i____,....::.. : p17'.he feels essential to its effectiveness.-.The feelings of etsentiality,,, confirsiatiOn and-selffitacceptance are precondition's' toeffective inorganizations:'These 'ate' all part of a person's totalseli-esteem._Onthe other ,hand,. . individuals. with.law self- esteemin one or niore-of the ".self" areat, can generite manyorianizational.00nflticts. ,SuchpersOnii tend, to becomeoverly defensive in order to be -able to survive with :thelow opinions they head of. thesiselves.result,: they'..depersonalize any feedback and attribute it _to uncontrollable,.',_events or to other people.Ttley.rationaVize aWay liegative:,.-information rather khan- acting to. 'improve' the situation:.They regard. such data,as- a cuMuleitive attack on- themselvesrather than accept

19 as useful that 'feedback which seenis'to
as useful that 'feedback which seenis'tobe .accurate.Conflicts occur when the person of 4.,-6w self.esteem!sdefOnsive behavior blocks pLOnest and meaningful interaction.with fellow workers; also when they 1)erceive that he -isfragile, they tend to ignore or, avoid' hilt; when such aperson, under stress, withdraws and :denies to .the-. others..raccess toorM zot1731cis (inciucting hwn-:1he holds back as well the benefit of his best-perfoilitnCe ..,-..-...which, under normal -conditrequire,would- reqUitaking- riskim.....0.1%01. -;"44,18.ROLE'- CONFLICT,......_Some social psychologists argue that an organizationis substantially a number of organized acts among people,.,'.People act on MOterials4 on machinet, and on one-another:- \_Thuix the organization is comprised of persons interacting_!,in certain.rOles; and it' is possible to understand' an:..rindiVidual's behavior iii-the organization by finding out"what his roles are in.respect.to.others.olebehavior in a complex organization refers to"the recurring actions of an.individUall.aepropriatay.interrelated with the repetitive activities of others so.. Poas _to yieldpredictive outcOme.'il2.memberi.,t.of the-.,_4organization perform, their interactions with others-who....are Often. called the. "role-det."The role-set is co

20 mposed'-P---of those persons who are int
mposed'-P---of those persons who are interdependent,with ajartiOular.person In ,the organization,,And'theactiviiiewalst define.,,his role aremaintained*throUghthe expectations of members....._ .,....p-g.:,',of the role -set,Sometimes, however, the person, does mit..-..d,-11....choose:to conform to.these "eitpeotations'and.conflict rallies.472,': e-p12.The strong est illdividual Stress Aspects-in roleVI.conflict are the expectations'gagsthat ,cause, personal,.'tension.' Theieare often due to the clash between the.4_perpon.and his yae-set rather than-r for example, the...pqrsom and the whole organization.The other causes of,4...f.individual stress presented above are all intensitied Aspan indiVidual interacts With other members of his rd1fe-set.4 -erIt...However, there is an4Mpottant distinction betweenrole conflict and indiyidual stress per se. ,In theformer, the emphasis is placed on Understanding the=.dIsputed'thai occur -when-there is_ interaction between0.0 4the person and his role set.In the latter" category,_.there is an effott to try to determine what happenedwithin the person that led him first to experienCe.dOnftt.flictOand later to act it out on the tole s0..RoleConflict' is interpersonal and intragroup in nature;individual stress is intrapersonal but eventu

21 ally leadingPt6the_interpersonal /exiel-
ally leadingPt6the_interpersonal /exiel-bf analysis.As I(atz and.Aehn-state about the nature.of role theory:4......,..It is the' reeeived role which is the immediatesource of influence and motivation of his(insofar as it is, influenced by Membersof his role set).Finally, the. Local personacts; showing some coMbinitiOn 4tomplianceand non -cops liance with the expectations of hisrole-set. ti-iThere are a- number of reasons. Ay ndividuale maynot conform to. the expectationp. of members'of their roleset.Onescontradictory messagesreceived.from others,.such as trying to live up to the expectations of the_principal of a school which may violate.iMpdrtant norm§P.of a.teaching*team.Two:different persons within arole -set may have diverse expectations and the individfial$,"*...may have to' choose one set of expectations.-instead.ofanother.- Example:sometimes a new teacher mayIP.*7 N".Ot.:i...;...Langaillatisneeded.lies in the choice' he makesaboUt how,:.J%.--.!-....choose between what his/her professor in college-taughtVto strive towardsand:the different phildsophies and'methods of the faculty with which she/he is now working.Three:interroIe conflicts manifested dile to themultiple roles in the organization. hick most persons0.must assume.An individual may Wet teacher, the hea

22 d.of a curriculum committee,, the member
d.of a curriculum committee,, the member bf a plandingcommittee, and at the same time a teachers' association..xepresentative,'A choice will have icibe -made by thisperson-betWeen'the expectationtoftakerswith whoM.he interacts, forthe different -rolesan expectation of onemight ,weld be in conflict with the expectations -of another,Four:,role overload, a result of expectations Of"meMbers of the various role sets which are too demanding'..Itmay beimpossible to satisfy them all.Five:peroonal reluctance.on the part of-theindividual.who'simpay. does not want to .comply with theexpectations of.members of his role -set.The expectationsi,may be. ,perceived: by the individual as against 'his personal.vaIesjnot personally interesting to him, in violation'Nt.-torofessional orientationto the work, dr different..-from hii own perceptions of What,is needed.This part of%role conflict theory is '-similar to the individual stresscategory.Once again; however, the .emphasii in this,.last differentiation between an individual's perceptions.0 -4R44p21.to oppose the others in the group, and not on his personaltensions which may lead sometimes unintentionally, tointerpersonal disputes.POteR STRUGGLES.f.'rtPower struggles seem to be-anatutal part oforganizational life'.Robett Ardrey claims

23 that man has.4a real need for territory
that man has.4a real need for territory or apiece of the action he cancall, hisown." 'David Modellararhas distin4Uihedbetween socialized Power, that is, the4desireto useinfluence, to serve and be more socivIly, responsible, And-personalized power, defined as the need to control and.use power toa dvance bne'sseif.- _The ocializedpower:%f4'teed is normal 'Among lig (lets and might be beneficial to,t''21the'orgvization.course" personalized poOter needcan also,-be d5structive.Michael C rOzier_states that,power' plays of one kind or another were"at them heart ofall the conaicte hehasstudied." And the' conclusive.thesis of Anthony Jay's "Management and Machiavelli" isthatbureaucratio politics (power playing) are normal andnatural and should therefore be dealt with dispassionatelyas a reality of organizationallife. 17J.40.Power struggles occur-when'some personsora grant:J(8)try to gain advaqtage over:others.One commpn- reason fora power struggle is competition for:scarce resources 4e.g.,026.N...L.e e.t-4Astatus, information,, work load,, -budget).the.objective-is to set up:a destiudtiire win-lose situatiow-whereby.6:1onemg p,-parties will be destroyed, or at. least.eldominate `by the victor.*tr.''1...- Asecond cause of power struggles'in:Complex.organit..z,.zationsarises wh

24 en parties seek to gain inflUence thrOug
en parties seek to gain inflUence thrOughthe,informal organization./fheperson dr,group(s) whohave the recognition -based power are the key to this gambit.(or` they are) perceived by organizational,'14mbeis as having access to the boss, or haVerled,Jarwhatever means deference from, others, received key assign-.a8.minis, he or they) are able because oeposiOmn to dp:1iir,erservices and-favors, etc., and4a power - wielding positioe'ha0.7beenestablished.'A third cause of.poier struggle conflict springs-frost thf Incompatible drives for autonomy and influence,Ily'definitton, to be -influential is to be Involved withpthers and to be autonomous is to be neither involved nor.= influenced.To be influential- therefore, fulfillecertainpower needs for control l-olier others, while 'to beAUtonomoUs-..0allows one to be his own man (Okercis control oveiself) -.Tigu,re I represents the spoweiftriangle" andhelps ma....6.better to understand some of these dynamicsor the...organizationapower struggle leading to Conflict:40.000 I.:..THE POWER TRIANGLEAUTHORITY.Influence and autonomy are mutually incompatibleoblectives_that clash at the .vertex and. are linkedtogether by the common base of formal authority.Persons.trying to be.autonomous7attempt to resist the rules,policies ana pressures

25 of those in authority, and those--who-se
of those in authority, and those--who-seek-influencs_either try to enlist the support ofauthority figures- (to use them) or vie for the positionstheimelves so-that they can combine informal influence023.with formal authdrity.Conflict arises when, for example.,Subordinates resist the orders ofthOse in authority orwhen the organization cannot.gain full- compliance bysubordinates for its dedisions.Conflicts also arise within'-apersOn orpgroUpthatattempts to be. both- influential and autonomous.A "best,of both worlds" approach seldom sucteeds an4 in this-case, it is difficult to straddle the line-between getting-.involved and'staying,aldof-A valid'reasonfor conflict develops:when an emergentleader with influence' (e.g.x,senior_professoi) disagreeswith the authOkitrpersondepartment cbairman).In;o213_0-to. 24:some organizations, the emergent leader can gain moreinfldence by remaining a marginal or informal leader,i.e., keeping a law profile and manipulating through others..Gonfltet also occurs when an individual succeeds.,at gaining freedom from the restrictions and thereby theainfluence of his role set.Such a person is often disputed..17,.because he cannot be counted on-to do his-share" of: thework) support the'norms considered by the role set to be0important or to contri

26 bute to-a resolution of the problems.and
bute to-a resolution of the problems.and issues being deliberated by them for which they 'areresponsible..The fourth of the,power struggles causes is manifested,when persons of equal authority in a-work group. (peers) viefor leadership positions and influence.Most group decision;are usually made by compromises or consensus.Eitherprocess results in unleashing powerful points of view thattry to sway the group; these can lead to unmanaged negativefeelings and disagreements.In fact, wide open channels ofcommunication can encourage the expression of' tensionsallof which is to the good, but only if 'those feelings aremanaged.Group-based emergent leadership it often captured byarticulate spokesmen because:the scene (a group. with members.4,0taking) is one in which expressive persons'ean dominate-.This sometimes causes conflicts for the inarticulate.the'tixddiand for those who haye a different reactive style29 .(e4g.,American Indians, through tribal traditions-25.inculcated from birth;generally listen and remain silent-until there is a movement towards consensus, or theyreally have a deeP.felt.positioq:to takel:.Intragroup conflicts also emerge-when newcomers find.it difficu/t to gain true access to the rest of the groupor when trying to establish their influence-identity.th

27 rough certain incumbents, they offend or
rough certain incumbents, they offend or irritate others,The indigenods seeds of power struggles take rootWhen group-based decision.making does not work.The con-fidential information that was freely exchanged becausethere was initial -trust is now used by, warring factionsin the 'form-of delitOrious-gossip or making. strategydecisions against the opposition.A fifth power struggle confrontation occurs when someof the interrelated departments and,orginizations are notbound by either a-COMMon-authority or the need to collaborate(interdependence).These independent units-, howeverltendto get involved in important power struggles to strengthentheir already strong positiond.They fight unilaterally-, for jurisdiction over various functions (territories)1.they vie with competitors,for sdarde.regources within the,common marketplace, demonstrating tOClients that they canout-perform their competitors (e.g. by profit Otatements),,failing really to communicate in the **ailing" phase thejoint Problems they have in common with the others; they"30_, distort -or WithholdpiOiliationfrom Clients and competitorsalike.Thus, as the opposing units- unite." defensively,strong intragroup -feelings of -solidarity against- the*AutonoMOugi- unit are built/ and as. a resulti..ndmeroua inter7-peri

28 oital hostilities and attitudes. of dist
oital hostilities and attitudes. of distruttThese are difficult, if not impossible,- to overctite. at alater time when the autonomousunit needs to work togetherwith One or -more of the other units..DIFFERENTIATION-The relationship between organization and environmenthas been the focuS of much recent research and theorybuilding.Both empirical and theoretical studies. haieshown that, given certain task -environmental requirements.,some patterns ofstructure and behavior are sore appropriate.-than'others; that organizations Conforming_ More closely_1with these patterns are. more effective.,,8This concept,subject of afgrowing body of literature, is called"Contingency -Theory:"It is a "contingent" theory beCausethetheme,common to these studies, is that,effectiVe patter:titof organizational structOre and behaVior are contingenton environmental and task demands.19.An organizationalpattern; initially well- suited to. an .existing.-enviroment,ceases to be-appropriate as major environmental changes;occur..They require coMpensating -changes' in the .taskpatterns of the organization in 'order for the organization tofunction dynamical-ly .Within the new, . environmental atmosphere..314 ,...The basic premise of 'Contingency Theory is that'an imitableenvironment requires the 'organi

29 zation ,to exhibit alertness;flexibility
zation ,to exhibit alertness;flexibility and dynamic. responsiveness. .to 'Whatever changes:..may occur.,Several empirical and iheoreticil Studkelit Of -organ i-zatiotial responsetoenvironmental Change ',support thisconclusion.29For example/ Burns and--Stalker haveshown"'that in order to ;survive, organizations thrust intodynamic0iand uncertain environments require 'different patterns- ofO1)structure and conflict resolution thandoorganizations..,3 ..........comfortably entconsed in, stable and unchanging environ-..-::---ments.21 Workby Emerf and Tist, Dill, $tarbucjc, andTerreberry also support these,findings:iind suggest -thatas environments evolve in terms of diversity., turbulence,Ci-,.-rates of change, or uncertainty, Organizational patternsof behaVior must evolve with the*.22One of the most recent and elaborate ContingenCy Theories.-,9has been advanced by'Lawrence and*Lorsch.Their approachhis already received -much- attention in business circles.231,Building -on several other studies concerning: organizationil-,environmental "fit," Lawrence and- Lorsch. vieWed organizationsas- -open Systems capableofInternal differentiation.-Within-.this premise, they developed a contingency model for studying'the relationship between environment and internally. differen-tiated

30 complexorganizations."Obsetving that org
complexorganizations."Obsetving that organizationalenvironments-often,offer:awide divergity of..issues, they.-i ,cpostulated that organizations segment themselves intosubunits, each subunit concentrating orvvne part of theorganization's task and environment.The authors-'' hypo-.thesized that if the individual "subenvironments' and.the. corresponding tasks Of these subunits were:different;..from each other, then - the -internal organizatiOh.of eachof the-various subunits would, also have to differ..They theorized that segmentation into subunitshas two. consequences:(1) the efforts of thevarioutsegmented:parts are integrated; making the entire organi-zation viable; and (2) differentiation among members ofthe various ports is created-."Differentiation"was,operationally"definea as the differences among rneibers. ofMajor subunits in cognitive and attitudinal Orientations,i.e.; differences in attitudes and behavior, not simplydivision of labor or specialization of knowledge.Diffeten-.tiation was measured in. four areas:,goal orientation,formality of structure; time orientation; ancFinterpersonalorientation.Using these constructs, Lawrence and Logsch pOstulated;and. later showed empiriciflY4 "that the greatetthe differen-tiation among parts; themore difficult it was to.brin

31 gabout.integration of effort.m25Integrit
gabout.integration of effort.m25Integritiokwes defined asthe perceived state of collaboration! betvven-lajor,paire.idsublinite.In &comparative study of. organizations in threedifferent U.S. industries; Lawrence and Lorsch found thateach indlistry required different patterns of differentiation30' r/if organizations were to be effectiVe.In the more diverseand uncertain industry-environments, subunits had to be29iIinbre- differentiated. from each other if the total organi-zation was to cope with the-diversity.of its tasks andsubenvironments.Environmental. diVersity was operationallydefined as . the degree to which- the_ sthenvironnents correspondingto various subunits differed in their relative certainty of infuriation,time- span- of feedback, and thenapeissues they presented=tothe-organization;26Lawrence and- Lorsch discovered that the more effectivefirms (in terms of economic .criteria) in industries .characterized by highdivertity were more differentiatedthan the less effectivefirms.27They alto-found thatthese firms had simultaneously achieved higher'states ofintegration bgtween subunits.In the more diverse environ-ments, high differentiation was required betwien. subunits'but considerable integration was heeded to bring together.these differentiated but interdepende

32 nt parts. jA study of the best performin
nt parts. jA study of the best performing organizations operatingin the differentiation mode showed that they were 'moreseffective in resolving interdepartmental conflict and injoint decision making than the lessei perfording firms.It was found-that the mechanics for integration-in'thelatter were more, highly deVeloped than in the former.Theseconclusions suggest that the higher the degree of differen-tiation among subunits-, the.greater the need for eiabOrate4 I630..integrating (conflict management) devices;.James Thompson indirectly reinforces this contentionwhen he states ,that division of labor (segmentation) isone of the major causes of organizaticinAl,cOnflict And that-#this 'is due,to the diverse orientations of the heterogeneousorganizational poRtilAtion (differentlation).28Todd Laporte, in studying a.government research anddevelopment orginization, discovered a minimum of diffekenz-tiation and therefore a minimum of conflict because the-workers were for the most part self-dependent scientistswho required little interaction with other scientists toaccomplish their part of the organizatiori't task..29However,in"Harrison White's studies of the disagreements betweenan R & D and a production department in an industrialenterprise, the. kinds of conflicts he describ

33 es aresimilarto the ones discovered by L
es aresimilarto the ones discovered by Lawrence .andLorsch in the highly.differentiated firms, and by-and-large substintiate theirconclusions."Conflicts occur because people and grows approach'problems with totally different orientations..This isespecially. true at the intergroup level of analysis wherewhole departments become cohesive and competitive and take._on.speciil indulgent characteristics to serve and protecttheir domain, causing. conflict thereby with other groups.outside their orbit whoseorientation and objectives aredifferent.this is just as true at the interperson'al levelwhen.t4o ifferent individuals try to 'collaborate je.4.4-3 51Ni IL31.academic consultant and line administrator, the directorsof two different departments, and old-timer and a youngMBA in the same task foice .INTERDEPENDENCEThe more two persons or groups are required by thenature of the task to work together (be interdependent),the greatei the potential for conflict.If persOns lustwork closely and dependently with one another to get thejob done, they will be more sensitive to their disagreements.Forced to Collaborate, the magnitude of the consequalCesof disagreements are intensified on aonetto-one basis'because of the nature of the close, enduring relationship.` As a result, the potenti

34 al for friendship or antagonism isin dir
al for friendship or antagonism isin direct ratiodisagreements.more intense orinterdependenceA residualto the intensity.and frequency .of theirThus, whenever conflict arises., it is made -'less Intense bythe relative climAte dif.thebetween the individuate.effect of high interdepends ce seems .to bethe corresponding drive for autonomy.31If t q imposition.of joint activity is 'too demanding, the people.i0yolved.will consider it an invasion of their right to pursusomeof their own interests.Interdependence, therefore, b eedsconflict when people with needs for autonomy for theirinterests tend to resist it (depending on how heavy arethe requirements for collaboration).-33 t,32_40Mien collaboration is superimposed by the organizationOndepartments or other groups, Soma comion,bOnflicts often,emerge.Usually they-ate the kinds of probleislwe disCussedin the previous :section on differentiation.Moreover, ifthe two groups ,have had a-histori of poor relationa in thepast, the new venture is adversely affected froi,the beginning:,This negative entry into collaboration can qdicklyaoctmUlateinto a struggle over who will. possess what informationspend what budget, initiate action oi control decisiohs..On the other fund, the laCk ofinterdependence canalso be a cause of organizational

35 conflict., Arsons whodo not have to coll
conflict., Arsons whodo not have to collaborate onthemain body of their workand therefore do not- frequently communicate Or interact withothers, tend to guard their-Insular domain by being secretiveand distiustfUl. They generally .do not understand nor seekknoWledge of the problems of other persons or groups.Opekating: without validated information,_ .they -will reactto; apparent or imagined encroachments on their autonomy.,creating real conflicts where often, none need to exist-.-;XTERNAL PRESSUREComplex organizationslwhethei they be bUsinest.orschoolso,must_accomplish.three major functions. simultaneously_in order to survive:they must adapt to demands cominggfrothe external environment, they must change-internallyto facilitate suchAadaption, land they-must need organizationalMg.a .1N-a-NT!4.-objectives.32..Thus, an enterpribe does not exist insavacuum; rather, it is a part of its own externalenviro n-Iment and Must meet those external demandS in'order to33:.continue existence.These factors'are part of the Lawrenceand Lorsch theory described abo4e in the section ondifferentiation.The boundaries of An organization at the interfacewith its environment are not self-contained but arepermeable.There is a continual process of *potting,.Converting and exporting materials t

36 oiand from the environ-ment.Walter Buckl
oiand from the environ-ment.Walter Buckley underscores thigs,conceptrSS4That a system is open, means, notsimply,tjat itengagesin interchanges,with the environment, butthat thisinterchange is in essential factor underlying the system'sviability, its reprodusSive ability- or continuity., andits ability to change.The external environment canbe a formidableforceimpinging on the organization. ,It can cause organizational..conflict as the internal system tries to- .adapt to of defend,against presdures frdb without.For exfmple, every bUsinessrecognizes the impact of its clients and competitors onits performance; every school system feels vulndrable to-the detands of parent and community groups, to chin4es.i;teaching and administration.Some OD theorists believe that exceptional conflictpossibilities are put on the system when the environment38 #-34.is generally uncertain or unstable (i:g., in innovative,.-,..Industries: such acelectronAds. or,plastich or, :in thepublic sector, when government funding is uncertain }..,-.Persons in such tentative-systemii-are-learful-and-are--------- --.--------7-._.._..under constant pressure to provide-for their own siiiirival.a.Thii leads to many conflicts, even when a-disaster'threat-.or;is not imminent.However, -when crisis reigns' and ch

37 aos-.,is rampant, the authority persons
aos-.,is rampant, the authority persons ,at ihe top of thWorgani-zation tighten their controls so as to assure system surviValand thereby theirAs .a result, many become involvedin vicious power ,st uggleconflicts.Each tries to dominateand secure his posi ion w;th added power and at the same time,take advantage of tjhe crisis in order to possess greaterinfluence and moreterritoryThe clients oconsumers,bring direct force to bear onHowever, some envwOri it has POstd.of organizations-gometimesthe servingorganisation.ronmental groups are part of the system'sown mechanism for 'gaining external Cooperation and: feedback,For example, stockholders vote end express their opinionsa& the annual meeting.The PTA serves as a channel forparents tO'discuss theirewsmith. re -school system/ Manyfeelp.however, that the effectiveness of an envirOnmental'group's input on the system is minimal because the orgapi-.nation controls whether or not to-act.on'their suggestions..pr, if it does act, it may-do-so in such ..a way that-the.interest of persons in the :systemare first protected- and /. or°39O 15,*.35.served, distorting and possibly destroying the intent of,the suggestion and the effectiveness of implementation.rAlto, organizations can' and do coergethe involvementof these kinds of grou

38 ps in decisions to back their ownself- s
ps in decisions to back their ownself- serving versions of a group-sponsored program of actionby deceptive promises to utilize the progrim_in" a waythat will satisfy-the group4 Objectives.When thedeception surfade4,,it is too late and generally tooembarrassing for the deceived group toadmit its gulla-i.if,"'bility besabotagingAprogramsiesupported.However,recent`decades in Mericin history havedemonstrated the powerful impatqf protest groupson'(141korganizations.'Students have illepecitated:universities;'t,g'.schools have beefi boycotted and, sometimes, shut down byrioting students and unhappy citizen groups; governmental'sagencies, pa riicuIarly those whose fundilons related tothe Vietnam Way and presently those wbose focus is onpoverty,race relationi, etc., have seen the victims ofmany irate citizens' assaults.Protettors have a whole menu of destructive techniquesthey use effectively to engineer disrders-, slowdowns,'sometimes ruin to the target cirgAnizations:whOle schoolsare immobilized and thrown into- chaos by the simple, act ofsetting off fire alarms or by calling in false bomb reports;valuably productive time_ of a orlipization's imiiort4htpersonnel is-di4Vipated respondirg to false aqcusations, 'td.-.-.4,zt.h:04I44011...44.4o. t04.44.-o.36.-.'crank" letters an

39 d phone calls, to forged .cemunidations0
d phone calls, to forged .cemunidations0c-.ft.ontaining information that is 'false, malicious and.embarrassing;stores service is disrupted when. ahcorate of phoney-costumers take. up tit& clerks'. tilde. ej.th a,series4Of nuisance questions and filse accusations- for ;.c! "the simple purpose of harassment and to make 'the regularcustomers impatient with the 'resulting lack of. serVice-.. .Ofteri,the technique is a subtle cfamPaignc.of half truths4...designed to get the media on the side .of the' protestorsi..1.....and take a position against -the organization.This. ie./....not tO say that 'all protest "graTt Pe that resort to suchIextreme techniques ire .not advocates of worthy causes..Generally, ,all. other methods of making their cause felt..-and acted upon have failed andsofte sort of extreme-.technique is ,a la st resort.-On'the other hand;. there0--- -groupsare protest grolips whose purpoie is not to better conditions-.or improve the .byttem-within socially acceptable COordinater.-.°a,°Their oblective,is to destroy the organization and thesystem itself because the systewill not accept them on.*tequal.termis-and! to this end, no action notadtid.ii...a..."iOoextre*...1..,....AThe author has- extensively researChed,the evolution4,of protest, groups and their target

40 . organizat=ions, over,,a period of year
. organizat=ions, over,,a period of years, tracing the progression of thp strategiesemployed to influence the organizationom.legitiMata7and.traditional presentationS/ through channels provided for by-O.t 4;: liDO.4-4".O...-system - through the extreme means of forde,and-violence...:1...0%."..,;7'...';',Wfitch.were ultidafittY resorted:when-the syStei-refuted.....--.........,...... 'their demands. ihdi4oUght off their .strategic-06ves: "'The_46 -study was concitnedwiththe 'black comiunitiesNew York.:.and' Boston vying for their communities' control of the.-pubEicischools.-In, he first study, the author identified twelyeaajOt groups that influenoed the Boston Soho& .b4pfirtment.'between 1962-1970.The major ones were in order_Of"their,.importance:Oarent andciti;en groupscin the black.community,,local universities, the mass mediafederal andstate governmental agencies, the teachers union, other.parental groups, dissenting students, ieform groups fi-oMsuburbia, professional organizations,:the business ComMunity,City Hall, and Lciedited agencies.33In a second, as yet unpublished teddy of five groupsin the black community in New York and Bostonsthat werevying for community control of the schdols, the authoridentifies the major strategied they use to exert influence.upon the

41 system.First, local,organizations useekt
system.First, local,organizations useekthetraditional andlegitimate channels (e.g., cOntacting,the.school personnel in charge'about given, problems, also 4through the PTA) trying to work with 'the school systemorganization.Failing to achi0,te their gbals, a.nuMber,of environMentalgroups reported using the 'political prodessti. try and exert-pre ssure:0 theyand i`mass meetings to which they invited schoolboardlitemktere;42"I,0_ 39.theyused-a lobby to try and influence the city counciland.state legislature; they solicited the 'support ofthemass media for their cause; they- evoked their considerablemembers:Kip to send telegraiis and d-letiers to public officials.Then anAttempt was made to "bore" fro® within:the bureau--cracy-of the environmental group tried to.work.quietly anddirectly with memberof the school system bureaucracy..?--.,hoping to achieve their objectives at lower hierarchiallevels; without going through the politici;ed process ofworking.with those at the top of the organisation who,seemed antagonistic and prejudicial.Failing it this level,the external grodps,used a third party; someone respectedby the school -system sand whole community (e.g.', a universityperson or someone from industry).Thrh tactic had as itsobjective to use this person toget the other S

42 ide:to-the4bargaining table so that the
ide:to-the4bargaining table so that the environmental group could beseen as an eqqal powedr.-"Then,still trying to work. withinthe system, these external groupe't4ied to go around the-establishedhierarchy.of the school system by eliciting"the support of higher sources of influende:the Courts,40the mayor, the state department of education.It was Onlyafter they were frustrated at every level within the,°system that they tried to sabotage directly the effoTts ofthe school'system by disrupting, ongoing prograhs, by,;...training studentsto disrupt-classes and other scholasticactivities; by strikingeby being selectively uncooperative. and by leaking information to the press to be used againstthe school system.Finally, some of these environmentalgroups seceded from the school system and pet, up alternativemodels worthy of the public's support.Other groups resortedto threats of violence and then to actual violence in orderto try and get the .school system to respond to their.demands:cfirst, they threatened-and then actually organised riots4and heated protests; and fit4lly, they threatened to causeharm to officials and to lb= .school buildings..Theschodi system fought back with every resource atits command.In the early stages,, ippeaseinent was tried,offering the environmenta

43 l groups small, inconsequential5encessio
l groups small, inconsequential5encessions to drop. their huge demands and support the4status quo.When this failed to stem the tide of protestsand demands, the'systems marshalled their 164a1 mandatesto combat the problem-groups: ,Furthermore, they demandedand were given (for the most part) the support'of the careerpersonnel within theorganitions,who refused to collaborate,with the unknowledgeablefflaymen on the, simple principle, thatthey were non-profedsional and not competent to judge notdeal with the matter over which they were prOtesting.The4systems reinforced their intransigent position on everyissue through biased public relations campaigns 'arid bydiversion, bringing t9 the fore othet importantuprojectsand concerns, ignoring the environmental groups'- problemsAs though they were non-existent.They further weakened thegroups''impact, by .banning or outlawing them from the system,444.4 e40.*thereby discouraging the possibility of external fundingto support their fightsBy refusing to give the groupspublic hearings or to interact with thenton any level, theysucceeded in eliminating much of their public visibility.And, lastly, when faced with.threats and with actualviolence, the systems retaliated in kind, 'utilizing policeand in extreme cases, the Natiohal Guard.An

44 other more recent-'trend by client and c
other more recent-'trend by client and consumer groups4to bring external presture to bear,on the internalorgani-zationv is the activity ofscrutiny" groups, such as the.Ralph Nader oiganization.These citizen watchdO -groupsexist to make private and.public organizations sociallyresponsible.The media have traditionally played this role,and continue to :be a powerful environmental force but theyare joihed by this new forde. .The-purioses andtactics ofscrutiny groups are much diffeient fipm those :of the pro-.tiestors and, in some ways, it is easier for the organizationto defend against the latter.-Scrutiny groups seek after scarce, information thatmight indict ap organization*and demonstrate that it is not4adequately serving society.They infiltrate the system and,through spying, get access to carefully gUaxded information.They, investigate public records. They snoop and probe.Such groups not only make an organization nervous-but'cancause it to change or face undesikable consequences, (e.g.,`boycott, loss of votes)Another type of-client group that needs to .be mentioned4 -3C is the regulating agendy.Accrediting agencies reviewthe school curriculum and have considerable impact on.it.Government teaks and agencies investigate and regulatebusiness activities.Fact-finding comm

45 ittees keep watchon the activities of pU
ittees keep watchon the activities of pUbrie-Wgendiet:Healthy organizations adapt to important.environmentaidemands but do so in a way that does' not disrupt their cordfunctioni.They engage in strategic planni4toc affectsome orderly response to external Pressdres;-otherwise,41-.they manage by crisis.Many enterprises,seek to influence.their environments as well (e.g., thrgh advertising) tocause the impactmake the process even more ratlonal.Aof the external environment is felt within the organization,an objective is to be adaptive andinnovative by managing.4the conflictt caused by external pressures.Their object:to be prepared and therefore not to be the victims ofenvironmental iohims and crises.However, managing these typesof conflicts is verydifficult.The sets of enterprises comprising the relevantenvironment lack a common authority to .bring them together,and often compete for scarce resources (e.g., within theindustry).They are not compelled to collaborate in orderto be effective and must accept a far more abstract andcomplex situation than if they were managing their own internal35,disputes.46 42..OtherScholars have mentioned other causes- of organizationalconflict that do not necessarily fall into the categoriesmentioned above.. Mayer ;aid feels that, in addition

46 tothe balance of power and the level of
tothe balance of power and the level of Interdependenceand communication-, the level of conflict is intensifiedaccording to the organization's goals.This happene-when organizational goals lead individuals and groups topursue mixed policies and when those goals give the organi-zation'a more Oroblem7solving (treatment)" orientationrather than a routinized or custodialorientation.36Joe Kelly also: mentions the moire formal aspects oforganizational life that,cause conflict:the physicalshape of the building (e.g., the lack of privacy impinges*on one's autonomy), the career structure, status incon--ugruency, "who has what," torMai authOrity in the hierarchy,organizational size, and the class struggle between workersandmanagers.37A number of'writers have discussed the inability tocommunicate effectiyely as the chief contributor to organi-czational disagreements.Louis Poidy also believes, alongwith many game ifiderists, that a more perfect exchange ofinformation allows, one to act more in hie own self-interest,whereas ignorance forces the parties to agree on alternativesof mutual.interest.Thus, perfect tommunication is notalways a desired state."However, Warren Schmidt and47. 43Robert Tannenbaum warn that unless .a dispute is based onthe same-set of perceived facts, conflic

47 ts could arisesimply because of misperce
ts could arisesimply because of misperceptions and uncommon information.39While good communication is essential for managingconflict, poor communication may onlybe a symptom of stillanother underlying cause of disagreement. ,Communicationhelps to resolve many of the disputes mentioned above,but it is a tool for managing a conflict that is usuallycaused by one of the six problems heretofore discusSed.Finally, organizational conflicts' are attributed toline versus staff misunderstandings,40to the degree ofinformation about one another:s activities, to competitionand the need*to compete, to status differences to.,aonflictingideas and to personality clashes.44IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTIONBased on a valid diagnosis of the situation,3.,.".1.'10%Conflict Manager can thew intervene to help manage thedispute.Conflict has been defined as energy expended inreaction to felt tension. The objective of an intervenor.is to make use of this energy for the,goodof the enterprise.An individual worker or a group within the system, however,-.may be most concerned about protecting seif-interests,.winning, keeping a lower profile or promoting goOd workingrelationships.Thus if the CM is to use this tension-energy.productively, he must attempt to find a xesolution strategywhich matches the self int

48 erests of indiViduals, groups andthe org
erests of indiViduals, groups andthe organization.48 .144.Contingency Theory is one conceptual tool usefUl tointegrate-Mutual self - interests for managing, organizationalconflict.Theie are t4ee major conflict managementapproaches from which =intervenor can draw to formUlate-an- approach appropriate for resolving a dispute: collabora-tion, bitgaining and.power-play.The appropriate use ofanyone of these methods deponddon theindividual andthe organizational state.-C011aboration:This theorymaintains that peopleshould surface their dikferenc4s (get them out in the Open),and then work on the problems until they .have attained.mutually. .satisfactory solutions-.This approach assumes4,0that people will be motivated to expend the time and energyfot such - problem- solving activity.It tries ;6 exploit thepossible mutual gains of the parties,in the dispUid andviews the conflict as avreative force pushing View to1.achieve an improved state.of affairs to which both sidesare fully committed.-Bargaining:This mode for managing dbnflictsassumes'that neither party will emerge satisfied from the con-frontation but that bath, through negotiation, can getsomething they do not have at the, start., or more of somethingthey need, usually by'giving up something of lesser impor7tance.4ne par

49 ty generally wins more than the other; b
ty generally wins more than the other; bythe skillfUl use of tactical trades, he can get the ifaximumpossible from thebther side.Sometimes the tactics used.49 in trading are underhanded and 'create bad feelings..the end, when an agreement is reached, it is usuallyenforced by a written contract-with sanctions in casenon-compliance.In the event no agreement-is reachedIn.third-party mediator may be employed to bind the_sides.eventual arbitratiOn.Power-playl. This mode differs from the Other two_.approaches 'because its emphasis .s on self - interest..Whereas, in colilboration,and.bardainingtwo sidescome together to try to resole theirioblems, When power. is the doMinant mode, the actiohs are unilateral or inofa45.coalitions acting unilaterally.All,of the power technician'sresources are unleashed' against his opponent to win:on agiven issue or a long -range program. 'He gives neitherinternal commitment nor does he agree to external sanctionsguaranteeing compliance to joint decisions.Collaboration is the most preferred strategy for thet.good of the enterprise because:.(I) it promotes authenticinterpersonal relations; (2) it is a creative force torinnovation and-improvement; (3) it enhances feedback andinformation flow, and (4) it has a way, of ameliorating theclimate of t

50 he organization so that.'there is more o
he organization so that.'there is more openness,.trust, risk-taking and good feelings of integrity.Bargaining is the second most preferred alternative.It is an approach that, at the least, .brings the vartiestogether and it can lead to binding them together to.joint503 q46.de isions.It- gets the substantive issues out on the -tablewhere they .can be better understood and acted Upon.It-7,allowsor interaction on the problem.-Pow -plc, k is the least desirable method fok orgaiii-1.zational effectiveness --(although it may be _the most dekirple.approach forindividual who has the potential for winning)-.a%sGenerally, agg' sive and hostile-.feelings exist betweenthose locked in ar struggle,.shutting.off communicationand interaction.Vi ious gossip may ensue, causing rumorsand otherwise distortg information.'Al]. of this tends todrive information underg ound so that the organization andthe parties involved cinnolearn from their' experiencesince there is little honest feedback.A large amount ofsabotage and non-compliance tak!s place which harms thesystem.People acting in their otr self-interest oftensubvert.. the organization.eSerious cases of- individual stress lead to personalpreoccupation with "self," at thp.expense of the organi-zation.The employeema, however, remain impo

51 rtant tothe enterprise: if a selfish bar
rtant tothe enterprise: if a selfish bargain is strnck whereby someof his needs aid met' in idturn.for useful seiyice.Otherwise,the person may ,have to be-fired.lor traniferred:In lessdramatic instances, a-more collaborative stance Can betaken with unhappy individuals through counielingoaching,..and thirdparty consultation.InstanCes-of external pressures are also more prone51 etto being fought using power or they can be resolved throughbirgaining. Independent entities in conflict haveno common-.,authority to bring them together, since they compete forscarce resources and lack common purpose. To become morecollaborative, they need to establish power parity, findways= to enhance ,their mutual interests (perhaps by,fighting:4a common enemy), structure more independence, and pkovideresources to support common efforts-and- skillful interactions.Bargaining'it a method for winning power parity which,when used effectively, permits the- parties to begin a'co-equal relationship when it is achieved.To assume a.trading position connotes equality, as each iArty recognizesthat the other has something of value tooffer and/or.withhold: Acting in good faith, trust can then be estab-.lished between both parties. _With such. a climate for0collaboration, ,the parties can begin to plan,

52 problem-solve and carefully define their
problem-solve and carefully define their mutual interests.For example, the author and his colleagues conducteda bargaining intervention within an elementary school-."(between independent teaching teams) and changed the0balance of power to a conditioh of more power parity.,This made it possible to increase the collaboration- effOrtebetween the parties.40Once: power parity and interdependence'..have been establ ished, open-systetsplanning schemes providetechnology for organization-environmental Collaboration.4152.0s. sOORole conflicts can-be managed by matching the popydho*logical expectations. of members- of the -role set, by' adlptingthe design ,Of the. work in such =a way that there is 4-o. role-Overload and so-that.One-isevalted- on the in -role `taskshe,performs.This can be Accomplisd by team4,1iildingWithin the rOlegroUp to develop 'Diodeesfor effective'communication, by conflict management, decisionMakIng,goal-setting and-by planning, establishing', and Ohafilingthe norms and values.A:thirdpartiedbnpultant can. often64help role group members by more objectively clarifying thedisputes., He -can do this-by structuring the time) placeand groundrdle'S forthe encounter4,4eddby helping,the.members find. solutions to° Problems by engaging In- anexploratory process and

53 encouraging- them to confront in a-,skil
encouraging- them to confront in a-,skillful manner,.Power struggles demand a somewhat different dollebora--tive strategy:A pm can .resort to authority and -mandatesolution to. the problem:He can 4tpempt tb "co-opt theinfluential parties inOrder to get them-to join the effort.cHe Can build coalitions .ofinflueniials: .Hecan develop a:A"favor" system whereby others ogre- him debts of'gretitlAdeand recognize. he will'bethe source -of..benefite--thereby making them support his activities-However, ;a Morecollaborative style than. any mentioned.aboVe would be, to b#ild a climate wherein opetiness-;:truptand risk - taking, were rewarded.'Workers 'would attempt toa 004exert their influence and.share their power agendas (self-interests) quite openly in collaboriting witti.JothersThebest ideas (not necessarily those4coming from the highest.authority) would.prevail.Decisions would be diadetby the,.group.People would_ be encouraged to- pattidipate, aseffectively as possible, in this problem- solving activity.Increasing interdependence ups the stakes and makesconflict. management more compelling and more apt to be.,engaged in by the workers.By thesametoken, decreasing:,interdependence leadi to conflicts which may have less-consequence for the enterprise since theparties do notha

54 ve.to interact to accomplish important t
ve.to interact to accomplish important tasks.However,decreasing interdependence may be a method in and of itselfto reduce the importanre of conflicts and, thus," to manage,themr.1f an organization,cari' afford to decrease inter-dependence by the nature of its critical task as influencedby the external environment, it may'vieti afailure to-manage conflicts as simply lost opportunities for improvementrather than threats to its lurvival.Differentiation is a common manifestation lending..itself to collaborative conflict management.AThere are various, waystOtesolve this phenomenon:by emphasizing commonpurposes around' which the various brientations can coalesce;by increasing the individual rewards for accomplishing the,collective task; by encouraging skillful listening and0communication sotgat differences are clarified and under'20,stood; by engaging in a problem- solving- process maximizing54;A10'- .1-fJ'AOa50._* the resong06 of the various members; and lastly, bytieing a consultant toLhele.the group work-through its'differeftees:dditionally,. the use ir;.the hierarchy of.,nositions, with the authority and infOrmation to.Malcecoordination an important priority helpi-theTakities to achieve a state of collaboration.6The followingligure suggests a mintingency, approachto co

55 nflict Management.FIGURE us CONFLICT MAN
nflict Management.FIGURE us CONFLICT MANAGEMENT cmcpEboundary of the orbit arethoie:problemsCrwhich often Originate outside t4e,eystem and over 'Which.it has little controls,At theof theptocela are"instances of Coalicellhich lend.themailves to a more_.collaboratiVe,approach: Mhe=collaborativerthod WillaC:4O 51.also lead to more organizational improvement.=Whilebargaining is the second most preferred CM mode, it isless central to the orbit than collaboration.PowerPtadtics-...maybe necessary (even functional) to 'deal with some-problems- but,' in general, are to be applied only 'where-aonditions do'not exist fora more long-term imprOvementstrategy.For .example, external threatt which seek't6 destroythe legitimacy of the enterprise (e.g., revolutionary,movements, scrutiny activities) -,can be combatted -fling..-power tactics.This is als6-trde for serious individualstress and for some internal power strugglei.'ThoseindiViduals with a high psychological need for power, a.desire for winning'their interests at any cost or a .commit..,I.ment to hurting the organization, may need to be dealt- withcommensurately..However,. bargaining may be the 'best strategy to useunder the following conditiodsiwhen power parity needs tobe established in order tb' wok* through a problem; when

56 external. pressures are such that a comm
external. pressures are such that a common .solletion to.theproblem is possible and .parties- are willing to-collaborate;when individuals feeling moderate-tension want to strike amore satisfactory personal contract with the system.Bar-gaining is also important when resources are acarce and.parties must compete for an absolute.Without a doubt, for organizational health, colltboraiion 0is the Most effeciiive way to manage conflicts.it istrue that collaborative methods lend themselves to some......idstances of individual. straits and external pressure...-Yet, this approach is best employed with .role disputes,differentiation and iowe'tegualizktion alternatives to..Apower sttuggles`under conditions ofthigh interdependence.,.Table-III belowillustratesthevarioustechnologies,applicable -.toto eadh major cause of conflict given thethree different approaches.'I952...I..I8....;.OWa. TABLE IIICONFLI CT MANAGEMENT PARADIGM_Causes of ConflictrCM TECHNOLOGIES4-.*.Collaboration-,Bargaining.Rider-'..External pressuress..open systems plan-ring....negotiation..force and threatsFlof-fortei.use oflaws co-optation,.strategic use .ofinformation, co-.:alitimbuilding'...Inditrichal stress...,,1touhseling)coaching,problem - solving-.contracting'-..VA..'fire,transfer,careful jobdescription'-,

57 Power struggles..-build organiza-tonal c
Power struggles..-build organiza-tonal climate,make decisionscloseto infot-mation source,best ideas pre --vail, encourageparticipation,probleh-solvingnegotiation,solve substan-tive issues ofscarce resource,allocation, es-tablish- powerparity,.use of legitimate'authority,co- optation,coalition build-ing, favor system.-...,_Low interdependence, .increasing groupinteraction.negotiation tointer-action4.5e. of legitimateauthority, tostructure moreinteraction,Role disputes,differentiation,high interdependence.--team building,.;Communicationskills, problemsolving, con-frontive style,imaging, third-party consul-ration,- climate4-...support with formalauthority andrewards.1158Gs Appendix III -whiCh,.follows is an:aitemptto describe"-briefli thevariousterMs- andtechnOlogieS inTableIn general, ithen the causes.ofconflictore.role- disputes,_differentiation, high interdependence - or saw forms ofpower struggles, a collaborative- strategy"seemsto bemost, effective.We can conclude bystating, asiziple growid rule- Whichthe Conflict Manager can use toguicie.iis.interVentionS.:-assess the situation arid- then..aCtappropriately.As. MichelCrozier has stated in a. Critique of thestrictly rational-And the strictly human relations approachtodispute.settlement:A human being, however, doesno

58 t have on).$ a' hand. and a-heart.He- al
t have on).$ a' hand. and a-heart.He- also hai'head,which means-Ie.is.free_ to.pity44 owngene...-Subordinates ens be ceeaide*44asIsee agentsmho can discuss.-theft ean'probleavand beige*about then, 'who do. not onlyenhmit to a power structure but:also particigate in that .structure.-.kanaging organizational -conflicts .situationallY-allows'forthe integration of the 'heart, the -handandthe head in one of the 'lost. important'asPeCti of:organizational life.59 CNAPPENDIX Iti55.NAMES OF JOURNALS CORRESPONDING. TO 'LETTER ABBREVIATIONSO*HOR:The Harvard Business ReviewAMJ:Academy_of Management JOurnal-.4TUUCalifornia Management. ReviewTCR:Teachers College 'Record.AN:Administrator's NotebookEAiS:EdUcational:Administration and .SupervisionEAQ:Educational- .Administration QuarterlyPAR;Public Administration ReviewASQ:Administrative Science QuarterlyJABS:Journal ofApplied Behavioral ScienceJCR:Journal -of Conflict Resolution"q-60-r10,t VAPPEND/Xi /IARTICLES APPEARING IN JOURNALS-LISTED-IN TABLE -IThe Harvard Business Review (HBRiqI.Directly-Related Articles56.F.J. Roethlisberger; *The Administrator's Skill:Communication,"Nov./Dec., 1953, 31, #6.Wendell Johnson; "The Fateful Process of Ni.Talking toMr. B.," Jan./Feb.; 953, 31, #1.-.Chris Argyris, "Human Problemswith Budgets,". Ja

59 n./Feb.,1953, 31,41.William C. Schutz, "
n./Feb.,1953, 31,41.William C. Schutz, "interpersonal Underworld," July /Aug.,1958, A6, #4.Robert N. McMUtry, "Conflicts in Human Values," May/June,1963, 41, #3.Warren H. Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum, "Man'agempnt ofDifferences,* Nov. /Dec., 19.60, 38, #6.John A. Seiler, "Diagnosing /nterdepartmental COnflici,"Sept:/Oct., 1963, 41, #5.David W. Ewing,,mTension'Can Be An Asset," Sept. /Oct., 19641.42, #5.Abraham Zaleznick, "The Dynamics of Subordinancy," May /June,1965, 431 63.F.J, Roethlisberger, "The Foreman:Master and Victim ofDouble Talk,*"Sept./Oct., 1965, 3, #5./sodOre Silver, "The Corporate Omb4daman," May/June; 1967,45, #3. e.,.57.Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsche "New Management Job:The Integrator,* Nov. /Dec., 1967, 45, #6.Joe Kelley, "Make Conflidt Work for You," July/Aug., 1970,48, #4.Harry Levinson, "COnflicts That Plague Family BusineSses,"Mar./Apr., 1971, 49, #2.M. Scott Myers, "Overcoming Union Opposition to Job Enrich-ment,* May/JUne, 1971, 49, #3.Alonzo McDonald,-*Conflict At The Summit:A'Deadly Game,"Mar./Apr., 1972,.50, #2.Larry E. Greiner, "Evolution and Revolution As OrganizationsGrow," July /Aug., 1972, 50, #4._Richard E. Waltbn,' "How to Counter:Alienation In the Plant,"Nov., Dec., 19.72, 50, #6.Robert N. McMurray,;"Power and the Ambitious Ex

60 ecutive,"Noy./Dect, 1973, 51, #6.-\AII.T
ecutive,"Noy./Dect, 1973, 51, #6.-\AII.Tangentially-Related Article'sElizabeth andFrancis Jennings, "Making Human Relations Work,"`Jan./Feb., 1951, 29, #1.Carl R. Roger g and F.J. Roethlisberger, "Harriers and Gatewaysto Communication," July/Aug., 1952, 30, #4.tiLeonard Sales and George Strauss, "Conflicts Within the LocalUniont",Nov.., Dec.-, 1952, 30, #6..Kenneth M. Thompson, "Hurdin Relations in Collective Bargaining,"Mar./Apr., 1953, 31, #2.Irving J. Lee,,"Procedure for 'Coercing' Agreement," Jan. /Feb.,1954, 32, #1.Chris Argyris,32, #5."Human Relations in a Hank," Sept-./Oct., 1954,Verne J. KallejianT Irbing R. Weschler, and Robert Tannenbaum,"Managers in Transition," July/Aug., 1955,033, #4.Robert N. McMurry,. "War and Peace in Labbr Relations," Nov./Dec.,1955, 33, #6.'63 Chris Argyris, "Interpersbnal Barriers to Decision-Making,".Mar./Apr., 1966, 44, #2,84-97.-Abraham Zaleznick, "Power and Politics in OrganizationalLife," May/June,_11970, 48, #3, 41-60.-Edward W. Jones,. Jr., !What %Is Like. to- be a Black Manager,"July/Aug.-, 1973,. 51, #4.C.F. Fertz and Joanne Hayman, "Progress For Women - -Men AreStill Mbre EqUal,"Sept./Oct., 1973, 51, #5.M. Barbara Boyle, "Equal Opportunity For Women Is SmartBusiness," Maylaune, 1973, 51, #3.George M. Prince, "Creative Mee

61 tings Through Power Sharing;",July /Aug.
tings Through Power Sharing;",July /Aug. 1972, 50, #4, 47-54.Henry-B. Arthur, "On Rivalry in the Marketplace," July /Aug.,1972, 50, #5.r.Academy of Management Journal (AMJ *)I.Directly-Related ArticlesJoseph A. Litterer, "Conflict in Organization:A Re- Examination,"Sept. 4 1964, 9, #39.aLouis R. Pondy, "A Systems Theory of Organizational Conflict,"Ibid.Henry. 0. Pruden, "Interorganizational Conflict,. Minkagte, andExchange:A Study of Industrial Salesmen," Sept., 1969, 12, #3.James A. Ba -lasco and Joseph A. Alutlo,'"pine-Staff Conflicts:Some Impirical Insights," Dec., 1969, 12, #4.Agthur E. Butler, Jr:, "Project Management:A Stuay, Of_--OrganizatiOnal Conflict," Mar., 1973, 16,.II.Tangentially-Related Articles'-Robert T. Gblembiewski and Arthei Blumberg, "The LaboratoryaApproach to Organization.Chinge:The Confrontation Design,"'June, 1968, 11, #2,--.t.,------------.s3_,----11.111 59.California Management Review (CMR*)Directly-Related Articles_T.E. Stephenson, "The Causes of'Managitent Conflict,."". 2, #2, 90-97.i.Richard Alan Goodman; "A Hidden Iatue in. Minority EMployment;°-1968, 11, #4, 27-30.Robert J. House, "Role Conflict and Multiple. Authofity i40.Complex Organizations," 1969v 12, #4, 53-60.James Gilbert Paltridge, "Organizational Conflict in Academia,"1970r 1

62 3, #3, 85-94.E. Frank_Hartison and.Jamer
3, #3, 85-94.E. Frank_Hartison and.Jamer E. Rosenzweig, "ProfessionalNorls and Organizational Goals:An Illusory Dichotomy,"Spring, 1972, 14; #3.Richard B. Higgins, "Managerial Behavior in Upwardly Oriented-Organizations," Spring, 1972, 14, #3..John Paul KoteerI-The Psychological Contract:Managing the,Joining-up Process," Spring, 1973, 15, #3.Edwin M. Epstein, "Dimensions of Corporate Power, Part X,"Winter, 1973, 16, #2.Akthur G. Butler, Jr., "Project Management, -A Study inOrganizational Conflict," March, l933].6, #1.II.Tangentially4elated Articles°----7.,.-William H. Knowles, "Human Relations. In Industry:Research.-----and Concepts," 1958, 1, #1, 87105....,Pita Prasow, "Reducing the Risk's. of Labor Arbitration,"1958, 1, #3, 39-46.Robert Tannenbaum, "Some Current Issues. in-Human Relations,"1959, 2, #2, 90-97.'acaZ.61.1-^:7.1,.. .60.CThomas A. Petit, "Managememt_.Ideology:Myth andReality4.°1960, 3, #2, 95-102.WilliamM. Fox,When Human Relations May 'Succeed and- theCompany rail," 1965, '8,-r.43, 19-24.Paul Prasow and Edward Peters, -"The Development of JudicialArbitration in 'Labor-Management Disputesiw1966,il:#3,7-16..Wendell French, "Organization Developlent Objectives,Assumptions and Strategies,°19691.12, #2, 23-34.-Saul Gellerman, !Behavior-al Strategies," 1969,

63 124'42,45-51.4Kenneth-Gc-Goode, 'Can- th
124'42,45-51.4Kenneth-Gc-Goode, 'Can- the ilroAmeridanBe An'EffectiieExecutivelt 1970, 11, 41,-22=26.Lyman K. -Randall, "CoMm6n Questions and-Tentative-AnswereRegarding Organization Develcipmenttle 1970, 131_ #34 45 -52.,'Theodore V.,,Purcell, S.J'.4 and Irene W. Rodgers, "Young Black'Workers 1peak.Thkir:Minds4"-Summer, 1912, 14, #4.Donald R. Domm and James E. Stafford, "Assimilating. Blacksinto the Organization-; °- Fall, 19724 15, #1.David Moment and Delmar-Fisher/ "Managerial Career Developmentand the Geherational Confrontation4" Spring, 1973,,A5,3-Jay Hall, "Communicatioll Revisited," Spring, 1973, 151434Gary -R. Gekmill and W.J. Heisler4,"Madhiavellianism AsFactor in- Managerial Job Strain, JOb.Satisfaction And. UpwardMobility," Mar04. 1912, 15 #1.S. Pre kash Sethi, °The-Corporation and the-Church:Initi-'tuti:onal Conflict and Social Responsibility,* Fall, 1972;151. #14 (63-74) .-oris Teachers College Record (TCR*)II.. Tangentially-Related. Articles,Edward B. Shils.and -C. Taylor Wliittier, "The 'Superintendent,The School Board and Collective Negotiations-," Oct., 1967,#1, 43-61.4Harold Hodkinson, "Student Protest: ,An Insititutionai and.National Profile," May, 1970, 71,'4.4, 537-555.Administrator's 'Notebook (AO)0I.Directly-Related ArticlesCharlesE. Bidwell, "S

64 omp.Causes of,Conflice and Tension %Amon
omp.Causes of,Conflice and Tension %Among.Teachers," March, 1956, 4, #7..R.J. Hills, "A New Concept of Staff Relationships," March;1960, 8, #7.Stephen P. Hencley, "The Conflict Patterns .6t schbol Super7.intendents," May, 1960, 8, #9..Alan F. Brown, 'Conflict and Stressin'Administrative Rel.ation-ships," March; 1962, 10, #7.J. Stephen Hazlett, "Sope Thoughts On. Educational COnflici,"Dec., 1968, 17, #4.Jathes N. Liphapt, Ruisel-Gregg:trid Richard A. RossMiller,',"The School Board:Resolverof Conflict/1" April, 1969, 17., 48.Edwin M. Bridges,'"Student Unrest-and Crisis Decision-Making,"Dec., 1969,.18, #4t,John B. Weeres, "School-Community Coniliqt in a Large UrbanSchool System,"^May, 1071;.19, #9.,.J\...\ II,.Tangentially-Related pArticles,,-;....317ohn' 11:14.*Andrews, "A Deterrent to HarMony Among_ TeaChers,.I.q,41arch1958,bI47..,...'141lia4 W. Savage, "The Administrator and Criticism ofEdUcation," Oct'., 1954, 3, 42.Wesley A. Wildman, "Collective Action by Public SchoolTeacheri," Feb., 1963, 11, #6.66rO1 r.Bernard= C. Watson; "The Principal:Forgotten Man inNegotiations,* Oct., 1966, 15, #2..62.Mark Hanson, "The Emerging Control Structure of Sohodise".-March le 1973, Vol. XXI, #2.,Rainey Mgth, "Teachei Percepticalt of Power, Conflict andConsensgs," April 24, 19734 Vo

65 l,.XXI,.#4.''.eofe%Rossell W. Meyers,. "
l,.XXI,.#4.''.eofe%Rossell W. Meyers,. "Bureaucratic Theory, and tchOols,":Jan-,14, 1972, Vol. XX,5..e'r..:.,-te.I.''-i....4Educational Administration and Supervision-lAtS*1_...0._7.1:6-II.Tangentially-Related Articles. Joseph Resnic#, "The Administrator.and Teacher Adjustment,"Ian., 19571 43, #1.'-4Educational Administration QuarterlyBAQi).I.Dirictly-Related Articles...Hill M. Walker, "The Superintendent's Use of Cooptation in.Handling Internal Interest and- Pressure drodps:.-Its Effebts-'and Consequences,'" Winter,= 1968, 4, #1, 32-44.:'Donald L.-Sayan and 44..W. Charter'sJr.,-"A Replication Among '4SchoolPrincipal's-oftheGross-Study Of 'Rae -Conflict.Resolution, " Spring' 197r, 6, #2, 36-45%"00A. William "Vantinex "Toward a theory of Collective -Negotiations,"Winter, 1972, 8, #1.II:Tangentially - Related. Articles-',._...Robert E. -am, "A Game Model Analysis of Gonflicts%of Interest-Situations in Administrationt"Autgranj.1M,.4,_411.A0.7_84._-.',: do.".o'George Madden, "A TheoFetical Basis for Differentiating Formsof Collective Bargaining in Education," Spring, 1969, 5, #2,76-90...0Public'Admiristration Review (PAR *),Directly-Related ArticlesGO Alan Itosenthal,.*Admini.strator-Teacher Relations:.garmoiXior Conflict?* June, 1967, .21, #2.Brooklyn Derr, "Conflict Re

66 solution in Organizations: -Viewsfiom th
solution in Organizations: -Viewsfiom the Field of Educational Administration,"Sept./Oct._,,1972,.32,....II.Tangentially-Related Articles..2.Jeptha A. Carrell, "The CityManager and His COuhci1: "SoUrOelg.of Conflict,* Dec., 1962, 22, #4.s.44-;.....Donald C. Rowat, "Ombudsman foi NOrth,America,*.Dec:_, 104,"14, #4..-.iArnold J. Auerbach, "Confrontation and Administrative ReSponsi,";Nov./Dec., 1969; 29, I6, 139-646.o'_Clyde J.. Wingfield, "Campus cohtlict,and Institutional Main-tenance.,-"Nov./Dec., 1969, 29, t6:.Chris'Argyris, *Organization Man:.Rational and Self-Actualizing,"tJuly/Au4s, 1973.,Herbert A: Simon, "Organization Man:Rational or 'Self-Actualizing?*July/Aug., 1973.Chris Argyris, *Some Limits of-Ragional Man Organizational Theory,"May/June, 1973.Administrative-Science Quarterly (ASQ*)1 Directly- Related ArticlesOscar Grusky, "Role Conflict in Organization," Mardh,4959,-3.,#4, 452-472..James D. Thompson, "Organizational Management of Conflict,"March, 1960, 4,4 , 389r409..Victor A. Thompson, "Hierarchy, Specialization and OrganizationalConflict," March, 961, 5,485-01.Mayer N. Zald, "Power Balance and, Staff Conflicts in Cor-rectional Institutions," 7,,J4be,'William M. Evan, Superior-Subordinate Conflict in ReseirChOrganizations," June, 1965, 10,. #,.4.Richard

67 E. Walton and JOhn M. Dutton, "The Manag
E. Walton and JOhn M. Dutton, "The Management .ofInterdepartmental 'tonflict," March, 1969,,14, #1, 78-83.680.0 ...Clagett_G,i4d.th.,. "Atompirative Analysis of Some Condit -ions0.and COnseg, nces of Intra-Organizational Conflict,"March,,1966, 10,1U,304-520..me.fiLouis R. Pondy, "Varieties-of Organizational Conflict,1969, 14, 114.Monald" G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict,"-Dec.,. 1969, 14, #4.'K. Dutton and lhopas P. toffertyiand Interdepartmental COnflict,",Richard- X. Aalton,.John"Organizational, ContextDec., 1969, 14, 4.#.John R. RiZIO;, Robert 4..house, Sidney I. Lintzman, "RoleConflict And Ambiguktyjn Complex Orgainizations,"June, 1970,15,12,-150-163.t'George B. Darkoriwald, Jr., "Organititionai Conflict inC011egesaftd-Universities," Dec., 1974 le,"" #4, 407-412.Atobeit lwBonn, "Arbitration:An Alteriative System forHandling.Contract Relafed'Disputes," 17, #2, June1972,254-264:-4ers.ca.StuartoM..SChkidt and Thomas A. tochan, "Conflict:Toward-Cbnceptual Clarity," 17, #3, Sept.._ 1972, 359370._C..John Child, "Strategies` of Control l-and OiganIttional Behavior,"4.-,18,Mar.,1973, 1-17.,Tangentially-Related ArticlesAf,7*414.6.4T*1!.;69Robert Dubin, "Power and Union-Management Relations," JUne, 1957,?, #1,*Amens Litwak and Lydia F. Hylton, "Interorganiza

68 tionai Analysis:An_HyPothesiS on Coordin
tionai Analysis:An_HyPothesiS on Coordinating Agencies," March, 1962, 6, #4,395-420:IJDelbert id. .Miller and Fremont,A. Skull, Irk, ,"The Prediaticin ofAdministrative Role Conflict Resolutions," Sept.; 1962, 7, # e143-1602..George-Strauss, "Tactics of Lateral Relationships:The Purchasing,Agent," 7, #2, 1903.David Mechanic, "Sources of POwer of Lower Participants inComplex Organizatibns," 7, #2, 1963...'Fred E. ICatZ,"Explaining Informal Work Groups in'Complex.Organizations:The Case for Autonomy in Structure," Sept., 1965,10, 12, 2042P.°69Ir'Tv 65.William A. Rushing, "Organizational Ruler and Surveillance,"March, 1966, 10, #4,423-443.Donald I. Warren, 11-Tha Effects of Pqwei Bases and Peer Grotipa',on Conformity in FormalgOrganizations," Dec, i 1969, 14, #4.Cornelius. J. Laiunars, "Strikes and Mutinies:" A Comparative.Study of Organizational Conflicts Between Rulers and Ruled,"Dec., 1969, /4, #4.Henry Assae],Constructive Role of interorganizatiOnalConflict," Dec., 1969, 14, #4."H. George Frederickson, "Role Occupancy. and Attitudes TowardLabor .Relations in.Government," Dec, 196.9, 14, #4.oDoug10 T. Hall and Roger Mansfield, "Organizational andIndividual Response 'to External Stress," Dec., 1971, 14, #4,533-547.;Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS*).I.Directl

69 y-Related ArticlesARobert R. Blake, sane
y-Related ArticlesARobert R. Blake, sane S. Mouton and. Richard L. Sloma, "TheUnion - Management Intergroup Laboratory," Jan./Feb./Mar., 1965,1. #1,'25-57.Richard-E. Walton,c"interpersonal Confrontations and Basic'Third Party Functions," July /Aug. /.Sept., 1968, 4 #3,'327-344.David W. Johnson and Roy J. Lewicki, -"The Initiation of Super-Iordinate Goals,",Jan./Feb./Mar., 1969, 5,9 -24.,Robert R. Blake-and Jane S. Moutin, "The Fifth. Achievement,"Octl/Nov./Dec., 1970, 6, #4, 413-426,Alchard E. Walton, "A Problem-Solving Woricsnot5 on,BOrderConflicts In Eastern Africa," Oct./Nov./Dec., 1970, 6, #4,453-489..Roy .J. Lewicki and Clayton P. Alderfer, "TheTension BetweenResearch and /ntervention in Intergroup Conflict," plus commentson this article',. July/Aug., 1973 9, #4.'LeOnard D. Goodstein-and Ronald K. Boyer, "Crisisintervention_.a Municipal Agency."43, May/June., 1972; 318-340.Samuel A. Culbert, '"Using Researdh to Guide an OrganizationDeVelopment," 8, #2, Mar./Apr., 1972, 203-236.,70.-0 Nei60.'II.Tangentially-Related ArticlesOle R. Nolsti, "East-West Conflict and Sib-Soviet Belations.,*Apr./May/June', 19'l, #2, 115-130:Chris Argyris, *Explorations in /fiterpersoni.s. Competence II,"July/Aug/Sept., 19656J, #31 255-269...Robert T. 'Golembiewski and Arthur Biumbcrg, "

70 Confrontation asa Training Design in Com
Confrontation asa Training Design in Complex Organizations," Oct:/Nov./Dec.,.1967, 525-547.Gilbert Levin andDavid D. Stein,- ."System- Interventiona.school-community -Conflict," JUlyAug../Sept.., 1970,#,:337-352.Robert T. Golembiewski,'stokAs B. Carrigan, Walter. R. Mead, .Robert Munzenrider, Arthur Blumberg, "Toward Building Nó * WorkRelationships:An Action' besign tor a Critical Intervention,"Mar/Apr., 1972, 8, #2, 135-148....$...Ronald. G. Corwin, "Strategies of,Organitaiional,SurVital:The.Case of a' National Program for-Educational Reform (TeacheiCorps)," July/Aug.!,1972, 8,. #4, 451z-480'1Journal Of Conflict Resolution (JCR*)I.Directly-Related-ArticlesAnn. Douglas, "The Peaceful Settlement of Industrial andIntergroup DisOutes," March, 1957, 1,"#1, 69-81.4Kenneth-Boulding, "Organization and Conflict," June, 1957,1, 12, 122-134.-.,William Aubert,."'Competition and -DisSensual.Two Types ofConflict and-of Conflict Resolution," March, 1963,-7-,, 1, 26.42.°Ralph M. Gol4pan, NA Theory0Conflict Processes and Organi-zational Offices," -Sept., 1966, 10, #3, 3284-343.-William M. Evan and John A. MacDougall, InterbrganizationalCOnflictt A Labor-Management Bargaining Experiment," Dec.,1964 11, #4, 398-411Oran X. Young, "Intermediaries:Additional.Thoughte oWThirdVartits,"-16-

71 #1, March,1972,:51-65-Ronald J. Piaher,
#1, March,1972,:51-65-Ronald J. Piaher, *Third Party Consultation;A Method,fer theStudy and ReZolution of Conflict," 16, #1, March, 1972, 6T-96.df -67./.Tangentially-Related ArticlesJudson_ S. Brown, "Principles of Intrapersonal Conflict," June,1957, 135-154.George Levinger, Kurt Lewin's Approach to Conflict and /tsResolution:A Review with Some Extensions,"Dec" 1959, 1,#4, 329-r339.Morton Deutsch, "Trust and Suspicion," Dec.:, 1958, 2. #4, 265-279.Irving L. Janis, "Decisional Conflicts:A Theoretical Analysis,"March, 1959; 3, 11,Irving L. Janis and Daniel Katz, "The Reduction. of intergroupHostility:Research Problems and Hypotheses," March, 1959;3, #1, 85.Daniel-Katz, "Consistent Reactive Participation of Group Membetsand Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," March, 1959, 3,, lip 2840.Robert R: Blake and Jane S. Mouton, "Comprehension ofin andOutgroup Positions Under Intergroup Competition," lay., 1961,. 3,304-310.Robert 0. Blood, Jr., 'Resolving Family- Conflidts,! June, 940,4, 12, 209-219.-Robert C. North, Howard E. Koch,. Jr., andM. Zinner, "TheIntegrative Functions of Conflict," Dec., 1960, 4, #3, 355T-374.Motton Deutsch and Robert M. Krauss, "Studies of InterpersonalBargaining," Matti', 1962, 6, #1, 52-76..Robert B. MKersies.Charles R. Perry and itichatd E. Walton,"

72 interorganizational Bargaining in Labor
interorganizational Bargaining in Labor Negotiations;" Dec.,1965, 9,'14, 463-481.,Barbara F. Muney and Morton Deutsch: "The Effects of RoleReversal Duking the Dis6ussion of OpposingNiewpoints," Sept.,1968, 12, 43, 345-,356..Burton B. Silver, "Social Mobility and Intergroup Antagonism,"A Simulation'," ec., 1973, Vol- XVII, 14.Robert 'Ladner, Jr., "Strategic Interaction and Conflict," March, -1973, Vol; XVII, #1.*r0S.S. KoMOrita, "Concession Making and 'Conflict ResolUtion,': Dec..1913Vol. XVII,Kathleen Whmeister-and Daniel Druckman, "Determinants ofResolving a-Conflict of Interest," March, 1973, Vol. XV.YI, #1.72.: L68.John Cheney_, Thomas Hartford, Leonard Stilomon, *The. Effectsof Communicating Threats and- Promises Upon the Bargaining.Process,* March, l972, Vol. 'XVI, -87, 91-107.z4V'73Oa0 APPENDIX IIIGLOSSARY OF-UNCOMMON TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS-Coaching:risACastunication ski.114:Confrontation style:Contracting:69.Helping a person by encouraging, advising;instructing, and otherwise aiding in theaccomplishment of a goal.Learning how to listen, understand issues,explore verbal and non-verbal messages sothat the conflict can be worked productively.Teaching people to value a style whichopenly surfaces- disagreements and then,.based on the data, attempt to confrontthe issue

73 s and solve the problems.Setting psychol
s and solve the problems.Setting psychological expectations andmaking agreements by explicitly dit-cussing agendas, wants, needs, quid, proquos and services.--,,Co-optati:DiScouraging opposition by encouragingopponents to join ...the orgarti_zation and,othereby, be forced to abide by the rules,norms anddecisions -they help create.4,This also means that the organizationmay 'have to 'allow itself to be influencedby the opposition in .order to attractt.rthem to join it.,O.Cbunaeling:Engaging in atherapeuticrelationshipwith a person to help him resolve (forhimSelf),,his own internal tensions.Imaging:A 'procedure designed to uncoverthe-commonperceptions and-misperceptions of partiffin conflict so that theproblems(isSuesiare clearer; validated. and can .be usedaslevers. for -managing- the, dispute.74 eNegotiation:70.A procedure, varying in its degree offormalityt, for deciding suhttantive issuesin a conflict and mechanisms to ensureresoldtion.It implies giVezand--take-compromise.Open systems planning:Various methods for including .parts ofthe external environment in the internaldedisioit making of the organization (e.g.the charette),.CtrganizationalPower parity:rPrcblem solving:%am building':9The norms, beliefs, values and rewarded=behaviors which constitute informal lawsi

74 n the enterprise.-If the climate support
n the enterprise.-If the climate supportstaking'risks,notexample, risk-oriented,workers will not hesitate to Stake them.Trying to gain advantages through, con-frontation; the amassing of ,resources;demonstrating strength.; .a feeling of beingtreated as a peer or equal' on given' issuesas well as in the general climate.,Openly sharing information (includingconflicts and anger). and. expanding energyto try to arrive at a common and creativesolution to a problem benefiting bothparties. A more Or. lest Sophisticatedprocedure can be used to arrive at asolution.Building skint, aitodUctive climate,.good4hterpersonal relations, and conceptualUnderstanding within the work group sothat it can use conflict producing, energyto accomplish their tasks creatively.Third-partycansultaiion:The use of someone both skilled (knowledgeable)and outside the immediate dispiteto listento the qbkflict and :intervene in order tohelp the parties manage their problems moreproductively.V 71.FOOTNOTES1Kenneth W. 'Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict -Management," WorkingPaper 74-3, Human- Syttems Development Study Center,-Graduate School.of Nhirageient, UCLA, 1974;- Clinton. F. Fink, liome. Conceptdal:Diffi--culties in the Theory y-of Social COnflict,'"-Journaltof ConflictResolution, 12,December, 1968, 4

75 12-460; Louis R. Poody, "OrganizationalC
12-460; Louis R. Poody, "OrganizationalConflict:Concepts- and Models, "-Administrative Sciericejluarterly, 12,'September, 1967,-296-320.aRichard A. Schmuck et. al., Handbook of-Okganizatidn-Develop-ment In Schools (Palo Alto:National-Press, 1972),; Toe Kelley, "WeConflict Work for You," Harvard Business Review; 402,Jdly/August1970, 103-113;_ Robert =R.- Blake- and Jane S. Manton; "The Fifth Achieve-ment," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, #4,. 1970, 413;426..-3Paul RAdwrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environ-ment(Harvard, 1967)-; John Morse and Jay 'W: Lorsch, "BeyondTheory17Harirata Business, Review,May /June, 19704 Jay W. Icasch. and:.Stephen Allen."11, Managing Diversity and Interdependence Oiarvard,1973); C. 'Brooklyn -Derr and John J. Gabarro,'"An.OrganizationalContingency Theory. for Education," .Educational-AdministrationQuarterly, 8,_02, 1972; John J. Gabarroi "Diagnosing Organization-Environment "Fit'--implications foir Organization-Development,"Education and Urban Society,February, 1974.-4Edgar H. Schein, Otganizatiohal Psychology (Englemiod Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1970).5'John Paul Kotter,."The Psychological Contract:Managing theJoining-up_Processe," California Management Review, 15,,#3, Spring1973, 91404'.weVChris Aygyris, Understanding Or

76 ganizational Behavior (Homewood,0Illinoi
ganizational Behavior (Homewood,0Illinois:Erwin- Dorsey Press, 1960).7Harry Levinson, Mario-Management and Mental Health (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1-067).8See Kenneth E. Boulding, "Organization' and Conflict," Journalof Conflict Resolution, June 1957, 2, 122-134; Robert N. *Murray,'"Conflicts in Human Values," Harvard Business Review, May/June, 1963,41. 130-145.7.6. r7-2.S.9SeeAbraham Zaleznick, "The Dynaniics of Subordinancy," HarvardBusiness. Review, May/June, 1965, 43, 119-131; and Victor A: Thompson,''Hierarchy, Specialization. and Organizational 'Conflict," AdministrativeScience Quarterly; -March, 1961, 485521.1°SeeJames D. licupson, "Organizational Manageinent of Conflict,PAdministrative Science Quarterly, Arch, 1960, 4, 389-409; LeonardBerkowitz, 'Frustrations, Comparisons and Other Sources of Emptional.Arousal as Contributors to Social Unrest," The Journal of Social_ Issues,Vol. 28, 1, 1972, 77-91.11-ChrisArgyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading,Addison- Wesley, 1970), 38-43;12See Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social nychology of,Organizations (New VOrk:John Wiley, 1966), p. 174.13Ibid.p. 198.14RobbrtArdrey,Territorial Imperative (New York:.DellPublishing Company, 1966).1 5DavidC. McClelland, "The Two Faces -ofInternational Affairs, X

77 KIV, 1, 1970.Journal of16mi.-che.1 Crozi
KIV, 1, 1970.Journal of16mi.-che.1 Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago:UniVersity of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 145.17Antony Jay, Mariaiat and..Machiavelli:An -Inquiiv-_into thePolities of Corporate LifeYork:Holt; Rinehart. a.ffinston, 1967).18See particularly'TomBurnsand.G.M. Stalker, The Manageirentcif Innovation. (London:Tavistock Institute, 1961) ;- Joanne Woodward,Industrial Organization (London:-Oxfoird University, Press, 1965);-Edgard Harvey:, "Technology and Structure of Organizatibn," AmericanSociological Review, 33,, 2. (April, 1968., 247 -258; Charlesrrit,"A Framework for the Comparative Analysis -of COmplex -Organizations,"American Saciolo4cal Review, 32, 2, (April, 1967), 194-208;A.K.Rice; The Enterprise- and Its Environment (London:Tavistock Institute,1963); Lawrenc%and Lorsch,m.cit.; and James D. Thompion,prgani-zations In Action .(New Ybrk:McCiTiw-Hill, 1967).41.9Lawrenc`b and Lorsch, Organization and Environment,m.citp. 186-.210.e20See F.E. Emery and -E.L. Trist, "The Causal Texture of Organi-zational Environment,"HumanRelations, 18,'1 (February, 1965), 21-32;77 73.and Wiliam Dill, "The Impact. of Erivironment on -OrganizationalDevelopment" in Sydney Marlick and E:1-1. Van NewConceitsand Issues in Administrative Behavior, (Englewood Cliffs: -

78 PrenticeHall, 1962) ; Thompson-,. p. cit
PrenticeHall, 1962) ; Thompson-,. p. cit.21See Sums and- Stalker,, a.. cit.., p.e 96;-pp. 119 -120,139440, 232-234.-.22geeEmery and Trist,. p. -cit.; William Dill, "Erivircannentas an Influence on Managerial Autonomy," Achinnistrative. Science._rterl2, 1958, 399-443;, ThOMpsce,cit.:, pp. 72,73; Shirleyerrerry, wthe, Evolution of Organization 'firoianents," Administrative'Science Quarterly,, -12, 4- -.March, 1968)590-613;. and William. Starbucic,"Organizational Gra/tit and Development,"- in James .Match(ed.,), Handbookof Organizations (Chidago:Rand.McNally;- .1965).; pp- 467-468-23See Lawrence and Lorsch,cit., "Differentiation andIntegration in 'Coriiplex Organizations,'"rninistrative Science.uarterly,. 12, , June 1967, pp. 1 -47-; .Developing Organizations:Diagnosis and Action (ReadingMass.:Addison- Wesley, -1969); borschandlawrence, ed., Studies in OrganizationalDesign (Homewood,Ill.:Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 197p;*and JayW-.* Lorsch,' Product Innovationand Organization (New York:McMillan, 1965).24SteLawrence and Lorsch, ibid.Several others have -alsopointed out that differentiation by organizations_ facing. cosidex-environments is a precondition to survival- and effettiveness..Workingfrom both an open system model and a P4rsonian ft-asp of refetence, Katzand Khan have

79 theorized that in order to survive, an
theorized that in order to survive, an 'organitationdifferentiates, itself into 'several subsyttems, .'Kat.z ,andlchan, TheSocial Psychology of Organizations (New York:John Wiley,,and1966J, pp. 45-5-456.Rice and Miller and their associates at the.Tavistock Institute haVe theorized that organizations differentiatethemselves to perforit the "primary task,"the tesk-whia theorganization mustdo .to survive:A.K. Rice, The Enterprise-and Its-Enviroivneniks(London:Tavistock Publicatiorta-,, 1963)pp.: 190-191;E.J.'Technology,: Territory. and Time:the Internal.Differen-tiation of Complex Production-System's;" Human Relations, 12, 243.272.25See Lawrence and Lorsch, (1967) pp. A7.48.Differentiation,between .subtinits makes integratiCin -of effort difficult because itincreases the potential conflitt -between, subunits.Walton and Duttonhave made this point in a review :of the literature on interdepartmental...conflict.Richard Walton and John Dutton, "Management of InterclepartMentalConflict: Model and Review," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.. 12',3, December,_ 1967, pp.,, 337-395.Similarly, ,March and Simon have.explained -the tendency which each subunit -has to pursue it own sub -goals at the expense of other organizational .goals as- a_ necessaryconsequence of thecogniti

80 ve,limitations of humans -as decision ma
ve,limitations of humans -as decision makers:'78 (74..See Jaws March and Hertiett Simon, Orsanizations .(New York:- John Wiley,1958), pp. 151 -154.OiganizatiOnal differentiation; -as Lawrence -andLorsch have defined it, ia4more extentive,elaXioration.-of the sameconcept because it also includes- the c.onsequeric,es .of-differeinces in.-work styles and other orientations, idtich. are source_ a of difficulty ininterunit relaiionships-. A detailed explanation of their methodologycan- be -found in Lawren0e- and WreckCit., 0: :247,08..4-26see.,La-.and Limsdi, ibid., p..91..,..1127Ibid..,-pp. 151-156.28James D. Thompson,m. cit.cp,-29....Todd R. LaPorte,. "Conditions of _Strain and Accoapodation inInduttrial Research Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly,.June, 1965, 10, 21-38.4,38Harrison White, "Management of Conflict and- SociometricStructure," The American Journal of Sociology-, 07,,165.7199:31Antony,Jay,-cit.Herbert. A.. Shepart, "Innovation-Resisting. andInnovation-PicitisOrganizations," in Warren G. *Bennis,Kemteth D. Benne and Robert Chin, The Planning. of (hanger (New York:'Holt, Rinehart and' Ninston;---1969)-;~p. 5Z0;. Antony Down, InsideBureaucracy (Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1969).. p. 147ran 'MichelCrozier, m.pp.. 160481.32Argyris,33...waiter Bu

81 ckley, Sociology and Mdern Systems Theor
ckley, Sociology and Mdern Systems Theory (Engle-wood Cliffs,Prentice4lal1, 1967), p.-50.34C. Biooklyn Derr; "An Organizational Analysis of the' BostonSchool Department," an unpublished Ed.P. Thesis, the Harvard,GraduateSchool of Education,1971.35Richard-E. Walton; "Inietorganizational Decisioh Making andIdentity :Conflict,"Special Technical Report 02 (The HarvardBusiness School, Division' of Research; 'March,- 1969) ; Howard,-Aldrich","OrganizatiCoal -Boundaries and 1#erorganiiationai .Conflict," .HumanRelations, 24, 4,August,971; EigendLitwak and -LydiaF. "ByltoiITTITorganitational Analysis; kifypothesis on Coordinating Agencies,"Administrative Science Quarterly-, 6; .March, 1962..36NWyerN. Zald, "Power Balance and"Staff C6nflicts inCorrectional Institutions;"."-Aftinistrative Science Quarterly, June,1962, 7, pp. 22 -49.r----7,9. -t.75/37Joe Kelley., "Make Conflict Work for You," Harvard BusinessReview, Jubrs/AugUst, 1970, pp. 103 -113.38See Louis R. Pondy, "Varieties of.Organizational Conflict,"Administrative Science Quarterly,.eCember, 1969, 14, 4.39Warren H.,Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum, 94anagement ofDifferences,"- Harvard. Business Review, November/December, 1960,pp. 107-115.400nline'and;taff conflicts, see E.: Rhenman, L. Strombeigand G. Wasterlund, Conflict

82 and Cooperation in .Business Organizati
and Cooperation in .Business Organizations,(New York:. John Wiley;, 1970); James A4 Belasco and Joseph A. Aluttoi"Line-Staff Conflicts: 'Some EmpiricalInsights," Academy of Manage-ment Journal, Decemher,.1969, 12, pp. 469-477.41C."Brooklyn Derr, PSurfaeing.and Managing OrganizationalPower," 0D Practitioner,'. 4, 2', 1972.110Peri SYstient:s and Traditional Hierarchies,"A Working Paper, Graduate Schbol of Management arid. Institute"ForDevelopmental 021ganizationA UCIA, .September, 197Z.°43Sed Crozier, St.it., pp. 149-150-Aft.8000a Initial Distribution- List.....--.DefenseDocumentationCenterCameron Station.-Alexandria, Virginiama.Bert Kiiig, Robert Guthrie,JohnNega$Office of Naval ResearchOrganizationalEffectiveness ProgramONR452Ballston Center ibwer #1800 N. Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22304Ma.NNaval Personnel Research and Development CenterEd. SficmasrSan Die, Cal.92152i Naval Personnel Research. arid DevelopCenterManagement of People and,OrganizationsSan Diego, Cal.92152411......-.a...'DeputYChief of NavalOperationsfor Manpower.(OP41)_Arlington AnnexWashington, D. C. 20370buieauof Naval .Personnel(Pers 62 andPers 65).Arlington AnnexWathihgton,,D. C.20370LibraryNaval Rostgraduate School.Monterey,'CA93940Capt. Peter Flyrin--DeputyDirector PMBureau of Medecine and Surge

83 ryWashington, P. C.ArnW Research Institu
ryWashington, P. C.ArnW Research InstituteConmohwealth Bldg..1300. WilsonBlvd.Rosalyn, VA22209ti.1*.Military Assistant For Human ResourcesOAD CE & 1,3).ODDR. & Epehtagpn 3D1,29Washington; D. C.20301'4...,,..v.-76..411se Hiznan Performance DivisionCode-'44--Navy Medical R&D CommandBethesda, Maryland 200141Officeof Deputy Chief of Staff For Personnelf..., -,1Research OfficeDAREPBR.Washington.,.D. C.20310Air University LibraryLSE9110.oMaxwell AFB, AL 36112,o.0Office -of Civilian Manpower ManagiiehtPerpsorinel Management -Evaluation Wench_ (72)Washington, D. C.20390Training OfficerHuman Resource Management CenterRICSan Diego, Cal.92133airector, ETRPDCpde N.33CNETNaval Air StatiOnPensacola, Fla.32508ConmanderOrganization DevelopmentPt. Ord, Cal. 9394000Z. A. Haute),41ss'3.0NaVal. Personnel and Training-Research Center,Code 30/SateDiego, Cal.95152CommanderHRMC05621Tidewater Dr.4-o-''North*, Va 235094Ccurnander}MCBid. 304naval Training Center_San Diego, Cal. '923a1044.4.01Caansndei.o Pearl Harbor Naval Station-FPO San ftstecisco, Cal.966010fs.#,If1tire;"..'t,10',A I)!pc.f04i%.0e..i82.477.a Cdimander-HNC13iiirean of Naval. Researc hWashington, D C.20370DIrectOr!ItimanItesciurcea Research713Architect Bldg:11100WilsonB1id._ArlingtOn, Va. .22209Chemin.BehaVioria Science-Dept.Na

84 .Val Caimandand Mgt.Dilision..O. S. Nava
.Val Caimandand Mgt.Dilision..O. S. Naval Academy.Lute Hall211102-.Rudy Winston'Organizational peha'vidrNavy -War.College,ProVidence, Rhilde :Island 02E140Ctianander4113WIDAlamecla*_Naval'Air Station-AlaMeda,911501Professorlilchael DeanCod '55.Naval,PostgraduateSchoolMonty_, "Cal.939110Professor Carson &gang.*_Ccde 55Naval. PostgrakiteSchool..'Montex4ey, gal,939110-t'Professor' ;David A. atitradyWO .55..."...-NavalPostgraduateSon:ialMonterey,Cal:-:-.939110.7..*I-ProfessorflphArdEasterCode. -55,._Nava] Postgraduate SchoollenntereY2Cal,939110Professor Douglas CourtneyCade, 55....,Naval Pottgraduki .Sehool..Monterey, Cal.. 9391104OftV.S..A.lier14.Code-55: &Iva Postdate Schoollb* eras Cal.9010,.*I ...78 CProfessor- Williath Hap, -.Code 55PNaval Postgeaduate SchoolMonterey, Cal.939110..Professor Tam.Wyatt'Code 55.NavalPostgraduate SchoolMonterey, Cal939110: ,r,-7-4Professor Gerald-MusgraveCede 55Naval Postgradiate Sdhcol.i..0.MOnterey, Cal; 939110aatRichard McGonigalCdde 5,I,Nays.], Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, Cal.09110Proft..or John Senger-Code 55Naval Postgraduate 'School-.Monterey; Cal.93940Professor Ches ter *Ight.'Code- 55-Naval Postgraduate School_.'.,,ForHuAan 'Goals CCUrse- Dean of -ResearchINaval Postgraduate sohdoi.monterey, CA' 93940-..t,r150, ..,:4484,.79'...