A Systems Theory of Organizational Conflict

Author(s): Louis R. Pondy

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, Special Theme: Theories of
Organizations (Sep., 1966), pp. 246-256
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/255122
Accessed: 28-03-2019 20:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/255122?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Systems Theory of Organizational
Conflict
LOUIS R. PONDY
University of Pittsburgh

Four "subsystems" of activity within an

organization are identified-informational,
political, functional, and social. Conflict
among the subunits of an organization may
occur within any one of these subsystems.
Informational conflict, in particular, is
due to goal differences among interde-
pendent subunits. But informational con-
flict affects and is affected by conflict oc-
curring in the other three subsystems as
well.

Conflict is a concept of many meanings. It is quite

conflict as interpersonal hostility; but it is equally legit
disagreement or perception of disagreement betweee
choice or preference; or as the inability to resolve such d
as incompatibilities among several formally defined jobs.
In other words, "conflict" can be conceived as a soci
variable, a political variable (i.e., inability to resolve diff
coalitions), or as a structural variable (i.e., having to do
tions). A complete theory of organizational conflict shou
how conflict arises in each of these cases and how, if
should also describe and explain how, if at all, one form
other and conceivably spreads throughout an organiz
Suppose we think of all the important variables which
simoniously, might describe the structure and behavior
its members. Suppose, furthermore, that we classify
subsets of variables on some basis which remains to b
subset, let us specify the causal relations among the var
shall call the variables in a given subset and the assoc
subsystem. If we choose and specify our subsystems
subsystem will describe how a different form of conflict
more, our conception of the organization will allow us t

* This analysis of organizational conflict as a systems problem

general project on a systems theory of organizational behavior b
Raghu Nath and myself. I am also indebted to Professors Haro
Jerome Kirk, Chris Argyris and my colleagues at the University
comments.

246

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966 Analysis of Organizational Conflict 247

how one form of conflict in a given subsystem affects the conflict level in the
other subsystems.

THE CHOICE OF SUBSYSTEMS

Our choice of subsystems is crucial. Practically speaking t

by how other theorists have conceived the organization and
empirical research have been done. A conceptually appealing
is described, at least implicitly, by the outline of March
Organizations.l
Chapter Two of Organizations is about "classical" or tradi
theory. Heavy emphasis is placed on the formal structure an
organization: the mode of departmentalization, specification
structure, job descriptions and formal interdependence of jo
plans and the like. The place of humans is that they carry o
to which they have been assigned. This subset of variables and their causal
inter-relations we choose to call the functional subsystem. Conflict can occur
in this subsystem when, for example, a man has two superiors, or when two de-
partments have legitimate competing claims on a scarce common resource, or
when the demands or activities of two or more jobs are otherwise incompatible.
Chapters Three and Four of the book deal with the "neo-classical" theory of
organization. The focus is on the social and motivational aspects of the mem-
bers: the existence of informal groups and group loyalties, non-economic in-
centives, interpersonal interactions and sentiments, member satisfactions and
other attitudes and perceptions, influence processes, particularly that of group
pressures, and so on. Human activity is of interest primarily because of devia-
tions from the formal role. We choose to call this set of variables and associated
causal connections the social subsystem. Conflict occurs in this subsystem w
individuals or groups experience feelings of hostility, anxiety, dissatifactio
or tension towards one another, the organization, or their tasks.
Chapters Six and Seven, more explicitly than the rest of the book, p
emphasis on the cognitive activities of the organization: decision makin
formation processing, the elaboration of subgoals, the structure and use of
munication channels, search activities and so forth. The human's role in th
conception of the organization is that of problem solver and information pr
sor. Let us call this set of variables and the causal relations the information
subsystem. Conflict occurs when problems are insoluble, or when two or m
groups or individuals disagree or their choices are incompatible.
Chapter Five, which deals explicitly with a theory of organizational con
begins, but does not develop very extensively, a political theory of organiz
The ideas developed more extensively in later writings by March2 and by C

1James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Son
1958).
'James G. March, "The Business Firm as a Political Coalition," Journal of Politics
(December 1962).

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
248 Academy of Management September

and March3 include: coalitions, gaming, bargaining, policy side payments,

strategies and others. Human activity is directed towards achieving a balance
of resources and demands, thereby evolving a collective ideology or goal structure
for the organization. This is the political subsystem. Conflict occurs when in-
dividual or subgroup demands are so inflexible as to preclude the formation of
viable coalitions.

CONFLICT IN THE INFORMATIONAL SUBSYSTEM

The March-Simon theory of conflict4 is essentially a theory of

information subsystem. They define conflict as difficulty in dec
But a major part of their theory consists of the effects of the soc
the functional subsystems on choice conflict. They also concern
the repercussions of choice conflict on the political subsystem, to w
may lead to bargaining behavior rather than problem-solving be
In this analysis, we are concerned only with inter-individual c
this particular section we shall deal only with inter-individual co
informational subsystem. We wish to ask under what conditions
experience difficulty in decision making in an organizational set
under what conditions do two individuals in formal organization
ceive themselves to be in disagreement or perceive their prefere
compatible. Suppose we measure this type of conflict by asking ea
rate the intensity of disagreement he perceives with each other
the organization.
We would predict that individual A perceives intense disagreement with
individual B when they are actually in disagreement over policies or issues of
mutual concern, and when their interdependence makes them aware of their
disagreements. Actual disagreements at the level of choice are likely to increase
with differences in goals. Furthermore, the intensity of interdependence is likely
to affect not only the awareness of disagreements, but it is also a measure of the
extent to which the two individuals are concerned with the same policies, issues,
and specific choices. These comments suggest the central hypothesis about con-
flict in the informational subsystem. We choose to call it the "goal sharing
hypothesis."
H-l: Other things being equal, perceived disagreement between two individuals will
increase with differences in goals and with increasing interdependence of their
formal roles.

A clearer understanding of this proposition requires more detailed discus

of the concept of role interdependence and of the nature of goals and the d
making process.

'Richard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Engle
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963).
'Op cit., Chap. 5.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966 Analysis of Organizational Conflict 249

Role Interdependence:
Role interdependence is an attribute of the formal organization. It is a
measure of the extent to which a person in one position depends on a person in
another position for work inputs or decision premises. It is a measure of th
interconnectedness of the organization. When what one person does or decides
does not affect what other persons do or decide, then role interdependence is low
For example, inventories may serve as a buffer between production and marketing
departments, thus reducing interdependence between those two sets of positions.
Role interdependence will be high when two or more persons have competin
claims on scarce resources such as office space, secretarial help, etc; or when th
formal job descriptions require frequent consultations among participants; o
when the formal system sets up widely shared norms of concensus.
Our concept of role interdependence is quite similar to the March-Simo
concept of "need for joint decision making," except that it also includes non
decision activities. Mlarch and Simon also introduce the concept of "felt need for
joint decision making" (emphasis mine), which suggests that people may perceiv
the intensity of interdependence differently from that specified by the form
structure.

To be consistent with our broader concept of interdependence, let us def

the concept of "felt need for joint activity." We would expect the "felt
for joint activity" to be closely correlated with the formal role interdepende
but we would also expect it, for example, to increase with increased liki
friendliness among the participants.5 The reaction of "felt need for joint acti
to conflict is particularly interesting. Below a certain critical level of conflic
would expect "felt need for joint activity" to increase with increasing conf
(in an attempt to resolve the conflict), but above that critical level, we wou
expect increased conflict to produce a withdrawal reaction in the form of a
"felt need for joint activity." These considerations lead to the following com
posite hypothesis, which we choose to call the "withdrawal hypothesis," bec
we regard the withdrawal reaction as the most important aspect of the hypot
H-2: Other things being equal, the felt need for joint activity between two individuals
will increase with role interdependence; with their mutual friendliness; and with
the level of perceived disagreement below a certain critical level of perceived
disagreement; but will decrease with the level of perceived disagreement above
that critical level.

As this hypothesis is stated, both members in a dyad will have th

need for joint activity. Role interdependence is an attribute of the
but felt need for joint activity is an attribute of each member's
and conceivably may differ for the two members of a given dyad.

'This is actually a proposition about a mechanism in the social subsystem. It d

the work of George C. Homans. See his Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, Inc., 1950).
'This a slight variation on Festinger's theory of group interaction. See Herbert A.
Simon's Models of Man (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957) for a mathematical
formalization of Festinger's model.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
250 Academy of Management September

members in low status offices may feel greater needs for joint decision making
with members in high status offices than vice versa.7 Or, less competent members
may seek out joint activity with more competent members than vice versa.8
Other factors which may affect the felt need for joint activity for both
members of a dyad are: (a) predictability-the more predictable member A's
activity or decisions are, the less member B needs joint consultation9; and, (b)
homophily and heterophily-persons tend to seek out both homophilous rela-
tions (i.e., with persons of similar value orientations) and, to a lesser extent,
heterophilous relations (i.e., with persons of different value orientations).10
The important effects of role interdependence and felt need for joint activity
on goals and decision-making will be discussed in the next section.

Goals and the Nature of the Decision Process:

The concept of a "goal" has unfortunately acquired a wide variety of mean-
ings through common, and even professional, usage.1l It sometimes is used to
refer to constitutionally or socially legitimate functions (e.g., the goal of a steel
company is to make steel), or to motives for action (e.g., the goal of a steel
company is to make a profit). Sometimes a goal means a specific objective or
target (e.g., the goal of a steel company is to make X tons of steel or Y dollars
of profit). Less frequently a goal refers to a constraint (e.g., to avoid making
decisions which might provoke a strike or government intervention).12
In general, by "goal" we shall mean a criterion of decision. A goal may be
a criterion for recognizing and structuring a problem for generating alternative
solutions, for evaluating the acceptability of alternatives, or for making the final
choice from among the alternatives. In this sense, a "goal" may be a motive, a
constraint, a societal function, or some sort of official mandate or imperative.
Each of these concepts of "goal" fits the notion of a criterion. All that we exclude
is the concept of a target, that is, a specific value of a goal or criterion, such as
10% profit. Profit is the criterion; 10% is the target.
Suppose now that a member of the organization uses his goals to select prob-
lems for solution, to generate and evaluate alternative solutions, and to make

7See, for example, H. H. Kelley, "Communication in Experimentally Created Hierarchies,"

Human Relations, 4 (1951), pp. 39-56.
8For example, see Peter Blau's discussion of patterns of consultation in his Dynamics of
Bureaucracy (rev. ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
9Predictability is in large measure a function of the existence of shared schedules and
plans. It also depends on how well members know each other and thus on the intensity and
duration of past interactions.
"Homophilous relations provide reassurance and moral support; heterophilous rela-
tions provide new perspectives and challenges. See Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott,
Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), p. 138.
"See Mayer N. Zald, "Comparative Analysis and Measurement of Organizational Goals,"
Sociological Quarterly.
12See Herbert A. Simon's, "On the Concept of Organizational Goal," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9(1), June 1964, pp. 1-22.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966 Analysis of Organizational Conflict 251

a choice from among those alternatives.13 If another member of the organization

uses different goals or attaches differential importance to them he is likely to
recognize different problems, generate different solutions, evaluate them differ-
ently, and make different choices from the first member. Furthermore, if each
member is aware of the other's activities, and if the decisions that one makes con-
strain the decisions that the other may make (i.e., if they are role interdepen-
dent), then they are likely to perceive disagreement with each other.
So far we have argued implicitly that each member has not only one goal
but multiple goals. It is the existence of multiple goals that causes an individual
to be in conflict with himself ;14 he cannot satisfy all possible criteria simultane-
ously. He must "satisfice" and give preference to some goals over others. We
have also implied that all goals are at the same level of specificity, some merely
more salient than others. This is not necessarily so. Some goals are relatively
specific, like paying the bills on time. Others are relatively ambiguous, like
maintaining fiscal responsibility. Suppose we give an organization member
a list of possible criteria and ask him to describe which criteria are closely
associated, that is, to separate the criteria into clusters or sets, and then to tell
which sets are most important. Suppose next we ask him to rank the criteria
within each set. The ranking of criteria sets we shall call "first order goal pref-
erences." The ranking of criteria within sets we shall call "second order goal
preferences."
At any one point in time an organization may be in conflict over very general
issues or over very specific issues. The faculty members of a graduate business
school, for example, may be in conflict over the worth of the Masters program.
Or they may take the worth of the Masters program as given, and argue about
which courses ought to be taught. Or they may take the courses and course
content as given and argue about how they should be taught. Depending on the
level of conflict, we would expect perceived disagreement to be more highly cor-
related with differences in first, second or other order goal preferences. And we
would expect the level of conflict to be more specific in older organizations with
stable membership and with stable environments.
How does a member of the organization come to value certain goals, and to
develop multiple goals? And what determines the extent of goal heterogeneity
among organization members? As a first approximation, we can assume that a
person's goals are fixed by the time he joins the organization. Thus the mem-
ber's goals are determined by who joins the organization and by who leaves. If an
organization has difficulty recruiting members and cannot afford to be selective,

3In a very real sense the goals a person uses in making decisions and the relative weight
he attaches to them define his organizational personality as his "needs" define his private
personality. See A. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, 50,
1943, pp. 370-396.
1March and Simon argue that the absence of intra-individual conflict is necessary for
the presence of inter-individual conflict. This is not necessarily so. If an individual is in
conflict with himself and finds it impossible to make a choice, he is likely to create conflict
in the rest of the organization through his failure to provide decision premises for others'
decisions.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
252 Academy of Man&gement September

then the goal differentiation among members will be high.15 Once a person is
a member of the organization and even if his goals are fixed, the impact of goal
differences on interpersonal conflict can be minimized by assigning persons with
widely different goals to roles which have a low role interdependence.
Suppose we next assume that a person's goals are not fixed during his or-
ganizational membership. A major determinant of his goals is the formal role
he plays in an organization. This is due partly to his internalizing the goals of
the department or the goals that normally attach to his office.16 It is also due
to the fact that he is exposed to complaints, requests, questions, and information,
from both outside and inside the organization, which reinforce and elaborate
his departmental or office-based goals.
Now consider two members who are highly role interdependent. Quite likely
they are exposed to similar internal and external environments, including each
other. We would expect their goals to be similar. Thus role interdependence
cuts both ways. It increases goal similarity and thus decreases the chance for
disagreement, but it also increases the awareness of disagreements. Which effect
is stronger is an empirical question.
We have yet to deal with the question of the evolution of multiple goals. We
have argued elsewhere17 that multiple goals or criteria are the "residues" of past
conflicts. Conflicts are frequently resolved not by reference to some super-
ordinate goal, but by the recognition and legitimization of the goals of the several
conflicting participants. To the extent that multiple goals constrain future
decisions, we may say that past conflict breeds future conflict.
We are ready for a summary of the essential features of interpersonal con-
flict in the informational subsystem:
1. We define interpersonal conflict as perceptions by the participants of disagreement
over some organizational matter(s) at some level of specificity.
2. Role interdependence is a measure of the official "interconnectedness" of two par-
ticipants. "Felt need for joint activity" is a measure of each participant's de-
sired interdependence with each other member.
3. Goals are defined as criteria for ex ante decision making or ex post performance
evaluation. Goal differences may be of the first order (two participants disagree on
the ranking of goal-clusters in importance), or of the second order (disagreement
on the ranking of goals within clusters).
4. We hypothesize that, ceteris paribus, perceived disagreement between the members
of a given dyad will:
a. increase with goal differences of the first or second order.
b. increase the rater's felt need for joint activity with the ratee.

"If goal differentiation is high and this leads to conflict, the persons who are sources
of conflict may leave or be forced out. Thus, turnover is a built-in stabilizer to reduce goa
differentiation and conflict.
"One of the assumed benefits of frequent inter-departmental transfers and rotatio
training programs is that they broaden the goals of the transferee or trainee, thus lowerin
goal differentiation and, hopefully, interpersonal conflict.
"7See my "Budgeting and Intergroup Conflict in Organizations," Pittsburgh Busin
Review, 34(3) (April 1964), pp. 1-3.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966 Analysis of Organizational Conflict 253

5. We hypothesize that, ceteris paribus, the rater's felt need for joint activity will:
a. increase with the role interdependence for the dyad.
b. increase with the rater's perceived disagreement at first, but then decrease with
perceived disagreementt above some critical level of perceived disagreement.
6. For purposes of the analysis we take goals and role interdependence as fixed. But
we recognize that over time (a) the goals of two participants in highly interdepend-
ent roles will become more nearly alike, and (b) participants who experience chronic
conflict with each other will be placed (or request to be placed) in positions with
low role interdependence.

This concludes our theoretical discussion of conflict in the informational

subsystem.

CONFLICT IN OTHER SUBSYSTEMS

The preceding analysis is based almost entirely on the March-S

of conflict and is heavily oriented toward cognitive mechanisms.
of this section is to explore some alternative explanations of confl
we wish to explore the effects of:
a. the desire for and the threat to an individual's autonomy.
b. the relative status of the dyad members.
c. the personality of each of the dyad members.

Autonomy and Conflict in the Political Subsystem:

In an excellent study of sixteen members of upper management in a medium
sized firm, White reports that the major source of conflict was departmental drive
for autonomy.l8
White selected five instances of chronic conflict, that is, issues which generated
continuing intense anxiety and which resulted in frequent restructuring of the
organization. Two were instances of what White calls "invasion," that is, the
attempt by one department to take over some of the functions currently carried
out by another department. Two were instances of "expansion," that is, attempts
by a department to bring within their realm marginal functions not currently
carried out by any other department. One was an instance of "insulation," that
is, a case in which one department tries to withdraw from responsibilities which
other departments attribute to it.
In each of the five cases, White asked each of the sixteen executives to state
his position on the matter. He was thus able to split his executives into two groups
(which correlated highly across the five issues) according to their preferences.19
He also asked each of the executives a series of questions to assess the presence
of positive or negative feelings toward each other executive.20 He classified
each relationship as positive, negative, ambivalent or neutral on the basis of

I8Harrison White, "Management Conflict and Sociometric Structure," American Journal

of Sociology, 67 (Sept. 1961), pp. 185-199.
'This categorization of executives into preference groups is analogous to our categorization
of officers into goal groups, but at a very specific level.
20The series included questions about perceptions of agreement or disagreement as well as
questions about felt tension and perceived esteem.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 Academy of Management September

these questions and then showed that there was a positive correspondence be-
tween similarity of preference on the five issues and the pattern of interpersonal
feelings.21
White did not present any quantitative data in support of his assertion that
"drive for autonomy" causes conflict. But his qualitative finding suggests that
such a proposition may be worth including in the context of the present study.
To say that a person perceives another person to be threatening his autonomy
means that he objects to the other person's high felt need for joint activity. In
other words if person A rates the need for joint activity with B too high, then B
is likely to experience conflict22 because of the threat to his autonomy. This is
a restatement of the invasion and expansion types of autonomy drive. In the
case of the insulation type of autonomy drive, we would expect person B to ex-
perience conflict if person A rates the need for joint activity with B too low.
Thus we wish to examine whether the correlation between perceived conflict
is significantly positive or negative for the cases which we examine. If both
mechanisms are present, then the effects may cancel out and the aggregated data
may hide their presence. However, we can study the relative strength of the
two mechanisms for different types of relationships, for example, peer and non-
peer relationships.

Status and Conflict in the Functional Subsystem:

The discussion so far has not attempted to specify whether the dyad relation-
ship under investigation is a relationship between peers or between non-peers;
that is, between persons occupying office of equal status or offices of unequal
status in the organization.23
Consider the case of peer dyads. Unless the two members of the dyad have
different personalities, we would expect them to perceive the same level of con-
flict, but that level of conflict will vary with their goal differences and their role
interdependence. However, we would expect high status peers to perceive more
conflict with each other than low status peers with each other for the following
reasons:

1. High status persons, more than low status persons, are engaged in more non-
routine, policy-making type activities where the guides to action are less clear and
the chance for disagreement therefore higher.
2. High status persons, more than low status persons, are probably less flexible in
their views, thus making the resolution of conflicts more difficult.

Furthermore, we would expect the drive for autonomy to be of the expansion

or invasion types among high status persons and of the insulation type among
low status persons. Thus, we predict a positive correlation for high status peers
between a rater's perceived conflict and the ratee's felt need for joint activity,
but a negative correlation for low status peers.

21This is, in essence, a finding in support of our goal sharing hypothesis.

22White's measure of perceived interpersonal conflict is multi-dimensional. He makes no
attempt to differentiate perceptions of disagreement, stress, esteem, etc.
23We assume here that status attaches to the office and not necessarily to the person.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1966 Analysis of Organizational Conflict 255

In the case of non-peer dyads, we would expect the subordinate's main source
of felt conflict to be attempted over-control by the superior.24 In other words,
we predict that for low status persons, felt conflict will be positively correlated
with the rating of felt need for joint activity by high status dyad partners. For
superiors on the other hand, we would expect insulation by low status persons
to generate felt conflict. We therefore predict a negative correlation between a
high status person's felt conflict and his low status dyad partner's felt need for
joint activity.

In summary we assert that the main effect of status on felt conflict is through
the differential effect of autonomy drives, as described above.

Personality and Conflict in the Social Subsystem:

In all of our explanations of conflict so far, we have asserted that the main
sources of conflict are organizational variables-goals of the participants, the
interdependence among roles, the absolute and relative status of participants-
or person variables which vary predictably with organization variables-felt
need for joint activity. We have assumed implicitly that there is a standard
personality type occupying the formal roles in the organization, or that a p
ticipant's personality, if it is not "standard," has little effect (relative to or-
ganizational variables) on perceptions of conflict.
The question we should like to raise in this section is whether variations in
personality account for a significant amount of the variance in perceived
conflict.25 Victor Thompson argues that "insecure" persons (i.e., those who are
immature and unable to accept the rigors and regimentation of bureaucratic
life) will feel more conflict in a given setting than "secure" persons.26
In a laboratory study of dyads composed of different personality types,
David V. Stimpson and Bernard M. Bass found that "interaction-oriented sub
jects saw more conflict than did self-oriented subjects or task-oriented subje
regardless of which partners they had," and furthermore that interaction-
oriented subjects were perceived to cause more conflicts for their partners.27
One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that interaction-oriented per-
sonality types both have a higher felt need for joint activity with their dyad
partners, and expect a higher felt need for joint activity from their dyad part-
ners. His own high need for joint activity threatens the autonomy of his partner
through the invasion or expansion mechanisms, and the partner's low need for
joint activity is perceived by the interaction-oriented person as attempted insula-

'Blau and Scott point out that, "the supervisor who resorts to formal status preroga-
tives and sanctions in his relations with his subordinates will alienate them. The supervisor's
tendency to enforce all official rules must be limited." Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott,
Formal Organizations, pp. 142-153.
25This is difficult to test in the context of a field study, since real organizations may have
efficient recruiting schemes which lead to standard personality types in the organization.
"See his Modern Organization (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), pp. 22-24, 152-159.
2See their "Dyadic Behavior of Self-Interaction, and Task-Oriented Subjects in a Test
Situation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(5) (May 1964), pp. 558-562.

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 Academy of Management September

tion. Another possible explanation is that interaction-oriented persons both

press for more group consensus on issues of importance and feel more conflict
if group concensus is not achieved.
In any case, we admit the possibility that non-standard personality types may
explain variations in perceived conflict not explained by impersonal organiza-
tional variables.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The central hypothesis of this analysis was that the major det
perceived interpersonal conflict is differentiation in the participan
organization. Some of the other propositions served to qualify th
pothesis, especially those dealing with role interdependence and f
joint activity. Other propositions served as alternative explanatio
-those dealing with autonomy, status, and personality.
We have so far assumed that the "goal-sharing hypothesis" is e
to be true in all types of organizations. This is not necessarily so
were to place all organizations or sub-organizations on some scale
according to the nature of the organization's activities. At one ext
find a government bureau or an assembly line department. In th
major determinants of behavior are likely to be procedural rules
either the technological environment or official departmental im
supported by habit and socially legitimate norms.
At this extreme where behavior is routine, the procedures wel
the environment stable, we would not expect perceived confli
correlated with goal differences. Personality, autonomy motives,
terdependence, and status are more likely to be the attributes of t
and its members which loom large as important explanatory variab
At the other extreme we might find organizations such as leg
or upper echelon management groups where activities are distinctl
and more concerned with the formulation of policy than with th
procedures. In these cases we would expect to find a much strong
between goal differentiation and perceived conflict. At intermediat
continuum, conflict may be correlated with lower order goal dif
As mentioned earlier, any given organization may move along t
over time. Other things being equal, we would expect older organ
near the routine end of the continuum. But we would expect sub
high up the hierarchial ladder to be near the non-routine end of
And we would also expect organizations to be forced toward the
extreme by a rapidly changing environment and by a high turnov
(which prevents reliance on routine, specialized procedures).

This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms