CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

studies i n

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Roles and I n d i v i d u a l S t r e s s

Robert L. Kahn
Donald M. Wolfe
Robert P. Quinn
J. D i e d r i c k Snoek
Robert A. Rosenthal
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I : INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 : ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS — - 1-1

CHAPTER 2; CONCEPTS, DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT

C o n c e p t s - - — — - - - - — - - - — - — — - — « - — - — « — « — « — * • « — - — — • • - - « - - * 2-2
O r g a n i z a t i o n ; O f f i c e ; R o l e ; Role S e t ; R o l e Expec-
t a t i o n s ; Sent R o l e ; Role P r e s s u r e s ; R o l e F o r c e s ;
Role Behavior
Role C o n f l i c t s * — — — — 2 - 1 1
Sent Role C o n f l i c t - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - * - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — 2-11
Types o f Role Conf l i c t — — — — — — — — — — — — 2-12
The Concept o f Role A m b i g u i t y - — * — — — — — — — — — - — 2 - i 4
Some I m p o r t a n t Areas o f A m b i g u i t y — — — — — — - 2-18
i n O c c u p a t i o n a l Roles
A T h e o r e t i c a l Model o f F a c t o r s I n v o l v e d i n Role
C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — 2-20
D i r e c t E f f e c t s o f Role P r e s s u r e s ; E f f e c t s o f
Response on Role E x p e c t a t i o n s ; O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Antecedents o f t h e Person's R o l e ; P e r s o n a l i t y
F a c t o r s ; The I n v o l v e m e n t o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l
R e l a t i o n s ; Coping Responses and f e e d b a c k "
Cycles
Research Design and M e a s u r e m e n t — — - - - - - — - - < » - - - - - • * — - - - — — - — - — 2-31
Design o f the I n t e n s i v e S t u d y — — — — — — 2-33
S e l e c t i o n o f F o c a l O f f i c e s ; S e l e c t i o n o f Role
Senders; Method o f Role A n a l y s i s ; Measuring
t h e E f f e c t s o f Role C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y ;
Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures; F o c a l I n t e r v i e w I ;
Role Sender I n t e r v i e w ; F o c a l I n t e r v i e w I I ;
Personality Inventory
N a t i o n a l S u r v e y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - — — — 2-48

PART I I : PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COSTS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

CHAPTER 3: ROLE CONFLICTS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

The Prevalence o f Role C o n f l i c t i n i n d u s t r y — — — — — — 3-1

The N a t u r e o f Role C o n f l i c t i n I n d u s t r y — — — « . — - — 3-6
P e r s o n a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Costs o f C o n f l i c t - - - — — — 3-12
T e n s i o n , D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and I n n e r C o n f l i c t s - — — — — 3-12
I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s and C o m m u n i c a t i o n — — — — — 3-15
Summary----——--—-•---—---»---—---—-——--——------—-- 3-20
 ii

CHAPTER 4: ROLE AMBIGUITY: PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

The Problem o f Role Ambiguity------------*----------------'—---'--- 4-1

The Scope o f t h e Problem----------------------------------------- 4-2
Sources o f Role A m b i g u i t y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * ' - 4-4
The A m b i g u i t y Experience and I t s E m o t i o n a l C o n s e q u e n c e s - - — — — — 4-9
Some Conclusions on t h e Nature o f Role A m b i g u i t y - — — — — 4-17
A m b i g u i t y and C o n f l i c t — — — — . « ^ . , . a . , . , « . „ . „ 5 . 4-21
e w 0 w n n

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Consequences o f A m b i g u i t y - — - — — - — — — — 4-22

PART I I I : ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES I N THE STUDY OF ROLE CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

CHAPTER 5: ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES AS SOURCES OF STRESS

I n t e r - g r o u p C o n f l i c t s and Boundary C o n f l i c t s — — — — — — 5-1

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Boundary C o n t a c t s - - - - - - - - - - - — - - — — — — 5-5
Resources and D e m a n d s - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — 5-12
O u t s i d e C o n t a c t s % S t a b i l i t y and D i s r u p t i o n s — — « — — - — 5-16
C o o r d i n a t i o n across B o u n d a r i e s - — - — - — — - — - - — — — 5-19
Departmental Boundary C o n t a c t s - - — — " - - — — - - — — — — — — 5-21
Problems o f Power and M i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g — — — — — — 5-26
Inadequate Access t o R e s o u r c e s — — — — — — — — — — 5-31
I n f l e x i b i l i t y o f R o l e Senders I n Other D e p a r t m e n t s — — - - — 5-33
Time-consuming C o o r d i n a t i v e A c t i v i t i e s — » — — — — 5-33
C o n c l u s i o n - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — * 5-34

CHAPTER 6s THE STRESSES OF INNOVATIVE ROLES

I n n o v a t i v e Roles and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t a t i o n — — — — — — 6-1

New Guard v s Old G u a r d — — — —
e — — — — — — — — — — — — 6-4
Creative vs. Uncreative A c t i v i t i e s - - - - - - — — — — — — — 6-11
Conclusion----------—----- ----- -------——————— 6-15

CHAPTER 7 i RANK AND STATUS

S t a t u s and S t r e s s — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — • » — < • « » — — • » • • • » • • — 7 —2
Self-reported H e a l t h — — — 7-3
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n - - - — - — - - - - - — — — — — — — — — 7-7
T e n s i o n — — — — — — — — — 7 - 1 1
N a t i o n a l Surveys Some I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s — — — — — — — — * 7-11
I n t e n s i v e Study: Some I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s — — — — — — 7-19
Summary-------------------------------------------------- 7-28

CHAPTER 8: ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS: SOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES

Normative E x p e c t a t i o n s and t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n a l M i l i e u — — — — 8-1

The Dimensions o f Normative E x p e c t a t i o n s — — — — — — — — 8-4
A t t r i b u t e s and Normative I f c c p e c t a t i o n s — — — — — — — — - 8-10
R o l e S t r e s s and t h e Normative M i l i e u — — — — — — — — — 8-15
 iii

FART I V : INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND ROLE STRESS

. CHAPTER 9: FORMAL ROLE RELATIONS AND ROLE STRESS

Four Role R e l a t i o n s - - C o n c e p t i o n and M e a s u r e m e n t — — — — — — » • 9-2

Power and Formal A u t h o r i t y R e l a t i o n s h i p s - - — — — — — — — 9-8
Sent Pressure and R o l e R e l a t i o n s — — - — - - - - — — — — — — — — * * 9-18
Job Conception and R o l e R e l a t i o n s - — ™ - — — — — — - — — — 9-25
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Norms and Role R e l a t i o n s - — — — — — — 9 - 3 0
F o r m a l Role R e l a t i o n s as C o n d i t i o n e r s o f t h e E f f e c t s
o f Role C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y — — — — — — — — — 9-37

PART V: PERSONALITY AS A CONDITIONER OF THE EFFECTS OF ROLE STRESS

CHAPTER 10: PERSONALITY AND ADJUSTMENT TO CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

F u n c t i o n s o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n R e a c t i o n s t o Role C o n f l i c t

P e r s o n a l i t y as S t i m u l u s f o r R o l e P r e s s u r e s - — — — 10-5
Differences i n S e n s i t i v i t y t o Environmental E v e n t s — — — - — 10-6
I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n Coping B e h a v i o r — — — — — — — 10-13
The Measurement o f I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s — — — — — — — 10-24
P e r s o n a l i t y Dimensions D e r i v e d f r o m S t a n d a r d i z e d
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s — - - — - — - — - — - — — — - « - — — — 10-29
M o t i v e s , V a l u e s and I d e n t i t y V a r i a b l e s — A s s e s s m e n t
From I n t e r v i e w P r o t o c o l s - — — — — — ™ — — — 10-36

CHAPTER 1 1 : NEUROTIC ANXIETY AND EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY TO STRESS

N e u r o t i c A n x i e t y and t h e Experience o f C o n f l i c t — — — — — — 11-3

Job T e n s i o n and S a t i s f a c t i o n — — — — — — — — — — — — 11-5
Sense o f E f f e c t i v e n e s s vs« F u t i l i t y — — — — — — — — — — — 11-7
N e u r o t i c i s m and A f f e c t i v e I n t e r p e r s o n a l B o n d s — — — — — - — - 11-10
I m p l i c a t i o n s o f N e u r o t i c and Non-Neurotic R e a c t i o n s — — — — — — 11-13

CHAPTER 12: INTROVERSION, SOCIABILITY AND DEFENSIVE WITHDRAWAL

The Concept o f E x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n — — — — — — — - . — 1 2 - 1
E x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n and t h e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Consequences
o f R o l e C o n f l i c t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12-4
S o c i a b i l i t y and Frequency o f S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n — — — — 12-4
S o c i a b i l i t y and S o c i a l I n f l u e n c e - — * — — — — — — — 12-6
A f f e c t i v e I n t e r p e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n s and S o c i a b i l i t y - — — 12-8
O t h e r s ' P e r c e p t i o n s o f Person's S o c i a b i l i t y
and i n d e p e n d e n c e - - — — — — — — — — — — " — 12-11
S o c i a b i l i t y and E m o t i o n a l T e n s i o n — — — — — - * — — — 12-14
Consequences o f E x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n — I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
and C o n c l u s i o n s — — — — — — — — — — — — 12-16
 iv

PART V I : CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 13: CONFLICT AND ATTEMPTED SOLUTION—SIX CASES ANALYZED

IN TERMS OF COPING STYLES

Introduction: Core Problems, D e r i v a t i v e Problems

and Coping s t y l e s - - — — — - — - - — — — — ~ — 13-1
Two Cases i n Which t h e Core Problem i s P r i m a r i l y I n t r a p s y c h i c - — — 13-5
Case 1—Assembly S u p e r i n t e n d e n t - - - — — — — — — — 1 3 - 5
Case 2 — E x e c u t i v e — — — — — — - - - - « . - — — — — 1 3 - 1 4
Two Cases i n Which t h e Core Problem i s Lack o f Person-Role F i t — — 13*20
Case 3 — M a t h e m a t i c i a n - - - - — - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13-20
Case 4 — S a l e s A n a l y s t -•~.----«~----~~«-~~.«--~--~---~~«.«. 13-30
Two Cases Wherein t h e Core S t r e s s i s Generated b y
the O b j e c t i v e E n v i r o n m e n t - — 1 3 - 3 4
Case 5 — M e d i c a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r — — 1 3 - 3 4
Case 6 — C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r — 13-45

CHAPTER 14: SUMMARY — — - — —-.14-1

APPENDICES
 Chapter 1

ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS

Many observers have remarked the unresolved problems o f s e l f - I d e n t i t y i n con-

temporary American l i f e . The haunting question "Who am I ? " i s asked, and answers

are sought from an environment which I s o f t e n unresponsive or i s i t s e l f i n f l u x .

I t i s n o t a c c i d e n t a l that the mental i l l n e s s e s of our time a r e manifest so frequently

as problems of o r i e n t a t i o n . C o n f l i c t and ambiguity a r e among the major c b a r a c t e r l s - .

t i c s of our s o c i e t y , and we are marked by them. Nor w i l l these conditions be e a s i l y

abated, f o r they are among the unintended consequences o f two of the most deep-running

trend8 i n modem I n d u s t r i a l l i f e - - t h e i n c r e a s i n g dominance of p h y s i c a l science and

the growth of large s c a l e o r g a n i s a t i o n s .

The s c i e n t i s t i s not now, i f he ever was, merely Man t h i n k i n g . Indeed, he may

not be Man t h i n k i n g a t a l l , except i n the a r e a of h i s own s p e c i a l t y . I n his relations

to other men, he i s I n c r e a s i n g l y a l i e n a t e d . The complex procedures, s p e c i a l apparatus,

and p r i v a t e vocabulary of p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e have made i t uncommunicable as understanding

to people outside. I n an e a r l i e r e r a s c i e n c e had already opposed the s u p e r f i c i a l

evidence of the senses; G a l i l e o taxed the imaginations of men no l e s s than E i n s t e i n .

I n our time, however, the breach between s c i e n c e and s o c i e t y has acquired a new

depth: t h e concepts of p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e , long e x p r e s s i b l e t o n o n - s c i e n t i s t s only i n

m e t a p h o r i c a l terms, a r e becoming i n a c c e s s i b l e to analogy. The r e s u l t , even f o r the

l i t e r a t e and engaged, i s dependence on the e x p e r t s .

Of t h e many consequences of an unchallenged I n i t i a t i v e i n the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s ,

one concerns us here--the i n c r e a s i n g r a p i d i t y o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. Each s c i e n t i f i c

discovery, each i n s i g h t i n t o p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n c a r r i e s w i t h i t a great Impetus f o r

actualization. This d r i v e comes i n p a r t from promised improvements I n h e a l t h and

standard o f l i v i n g ; i t s v i t a l source, however, i s the immediate reward to the user.

I n c o m p e t i t i o n among companies, as among n a t i o n s , supremacy depends on t e c h n o l o g i c a l

 1-2

innovation. To q u e s t i o n the r a t e o f change or i t s source seems r e c k l e s s , or worse.

The pause f o r r e f l e c t i o n i s condemned as suicidal.

These s e v e r a l tendencies i n t e r a c t v i g o r o u s l y ; the growth o f science creates

a c u l t u r e o f dependence on e x p e r t s and an a c c e l e r a t i n g r a t e o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l change.

•The f a c t o f r a p i d change i n v a l i d a t e s t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d as h i s

e x p e r i e n c e becomes i r r e l e v a n t , h i s dependence on e x p e r t i s e approaches the infinite.

The second t r e n d w h i c h we a f f i r m e d i s t h e i n c r e a s i n g importance o f l a r g e scale

organizations i n shaping i n d i v i d u a l and social l i f e . Bertrand Russell (1930) once

summed up the purpose o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s by s t a t i n g t h a t " m a n k i n d decided t h a t i t would

submit t o monotony and tedium i n o r d e r t o d i m i n i s h the r i s k o f s t a r v a t i o n . 1 1

We need

not question E a r l R u s s e l l ' s i m p l i e d h y p o t h e s i s about t h e o r i g i n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n , nor

t h e c o s t l y exchange which he a s s e r t s . Let us c o n s i d e r i n s t e a d t h e . i m p o r t a n t organiza-

t i o n a l t r u t h i m p l i e d i n the phrase " t o d i m i n i s h the r i s k o f - s t a r v a t i o n . 11

An organiza-

t i o n i s above a l l p u r p o s e f u l . I t e x i s t s f o r t h e achievement o f some g o a l - - t h e c r e a t i o n

o f a p r o d u c t or the r e n d e r i n g o f a s e r v i c e - - a n d the major c r i t e r i a by w h i c h i t i s

j u d g e d a r e i t s success and e f f i c i e n c y i n goal achievement.

Whether o r n o t c o r p o r a t e b u r e a u c r a c y deserves t o be c a l l e d : t h e g r e a t e s t invention

o f the 2 0 t h c e n t u r y (Fortune, 1961), i t i s an i m p r e s s i v e and, w i t h i n l i m i t s , an

eminently r a t i o n a l s o c i a l c r e a t i o n . . R a t i o n a l i t y i s e s p e c i a l l y m a n i f e s t i n the fitting

together o f component p a r t s , and i n the c a r e f u l l y planned p a t t e r n o f r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s

i n t h e s e r v i c e o f an o v e r a l l g o a l . To b r i n g t h a t p l a n t o l i f e , however, r e q u i r e s

t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r o f people as members o f organizations.

One o f t h e g r e a t i n h e r e n t needs o f any o r g a n i z a t i o n i s d e p e n d a b i l i t y of r o l e per-

formance. I n the i n t e r d e p e n d e n t process o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n , each member must

do h i s p a r t . Moreover, the more complex and s p e c i a l i z e d the o r g a n i z a t i o n becomes,

t h e g r e a t e r becomes the degree o f interdependence and the need f o r c o n f o r m i t y t o the

requirements of organizational r o l e . One f i e l d hand m i s s i n g from a gang p i c k i n g

 1"3

c o t t o n m e r e l y reduces the t o t a l p r o d u c t by the amount o f h i s own production. One

f u n c t i o n unperformed i n an assembly l i n e makes the t o t a l product defective or i n -

operative.

Out o f t h i s need f o r c o n f o r m i t y stems one of the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

formal organization--perhaps i t s most e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c : i n f l u e n c e over

member b e h a v i o r . Much o f the p a r a p h e r n a l i a o f o r g a n i z a t i o n has t o do w i t h t h e main-

tenance and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e . I t i s worked a t ; i t i s a t t a c k e d and defended,

d e f i n e d and r e d e f i n e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o s t y l e , means, and b o u n d a r i e s . And i t i s suc-

c e s s f u l ; i n s p i t e o f the d e f i a n c e and i n g e n u i t y o f human b e i n g s , the degree o f con-

f o r m i t y t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l requirements i s p r o d i g i o u s . W i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , mem-

b e r s behave i n ways w h i c h they would n o t do o u t s i d e i t . They use t i t l e s w h i c h would

n o t be used o u t s i d e . They wear u n i f o r m s o r costumes w h i c h would embarrass them i n

other circumstances. Above a l l , t h e i r b e h a v i o r i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s shows a s e l e c t i v i t y ,

a r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s , and a p e r s i s t e n c e w h i c h i s n o t t o be observed i n t h e same persons

when o u t s i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n . F. H. A l l p o r t c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s , f a c t many years

ago, and gave d r a m a t i c expression t o i t by comparing the normal c u r v e o f i n d i v i d u a l

a t t r i b u t e s and a c t s t o the c u r v e o f c o n f o r m i t y ( J - c u r v e ) w h i c h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y determined b e h a v i o r . ( A l l p o r t , 1934.)

The two s o c i e t a l t r e n d s w h i c h we have j u s t d e s c r i b e d - - t h e vast growth of formal

o r g a n i z a t i o n and the e q u a l l y l a r g e expansion o f s c i e n c e — h a v e i n common t h i n g s o t h e r

t h a n a h i s t o r y o f r a p i d development and i n c r e a s i n g dominance. Both encourage and

a c c e l e r a t e the r a t e o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l change, s c i e n c e through acts o f discovery,

o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h r o u g h the c o m p e t i t i v e s e a r c h f o r i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y and new mar-

kets. B o t h c r e a t e f o r many people a s t a n c e o f c o n f o r m i t y , dependence, and deference

toward s p e c i a l i s t s . Most h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s demand such b e h a v i o r . The

s c i e n t i f i c method s p e c i f i c a l l y opposes i t w i t h i n the s c i e n t i f i c e n t e r p r i s e , b u t

I n t h e c o u r s e o f e n c o u r a g i n g among s c i e n t i s t s the values o f s k e p t i c i s m and ob-

j e c t i v i t y , science has c r e a t e d f o r n o n - s c i e n t i s t s the o p p o s i t e o f these v a l u e s - -

 1-4

an emphasis on c o n f o m i t y and second-hand assurances. I n s h o r t , t h e growth o f b i g

o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e development o f b i g s c i e n c e have b o t h c o n t r i b u t e d t o a h i g h

degree o f dependence and c o n f o r m i t y — o n e t h r o u g h i t s b a s i c requirements and i d e o l o g y ,

the o t h e r t h r o u g h t h e u n i n t e n d e d consequences o f i t s own f r e e d o n and expansion.

All t h i s i s s p e c u l a t i v e and some o f i t , i f t r u e , i s c e r t a i n l y n o t new. There

have been many times more obedience-demanding t h a n o u r s , and most contemporary

s o c i e t i e s a r e f a r more so. But i t i s n o t t h e c o n f o r m i t y r e q u i r e m e n t alone w h i c h

c r e a t e s problems o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . They seem r a t h e r t o be emergent prob-

lems; t h e y a r i s e from emphasis on s u c c e s s f u l c o n f o r m i t y i n an i n d u s t r i a l society

w h i c h i s i n a ceaseless and a c c e l e r a t i n g s t a t e o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. Thus t o t h e

c o s t l y i d e o l o g y o f b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n f o r m i t y i s added t h e i r o n y o f c o n f l i c t i n g and

ambiguous d i r e c t i o n s .

I n t h e i r extreme form c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y pose f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l an almost

insurmountable problem. One i s reminded o f t h e p s y c h o s i s - i n d u c i n g animal experiments

o f e a r l i e r years ( H a l e r , 1949) i n w h i c h r a t s who had l e a r n e d w e l l t o p e r f o r m a r e -

w a r d i n g sequence o f t a s k s were c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a p a t t e r n o f r e q u i r e m e n t s s u c c e s s i v e l y

a l t e r e d beyond t h e i r a b i l i t y t o comprehend. F o r these animals f r u s t r a t i o n , rage,

and s t r u g g l e u l t i m a t e l y were r e p l a c e d by a s t a t e o f shuddering p a s s i v i t y i n w h i c h

even t h e e l e m e n t a r y responses o f s e l f - d e f e n s e were l a c k i n g .

We assume t h a t f o r human beings an e q u a l l y u n i n t e l l i g i b l e environment would be

no l e s s damaging. From t h e b e g i n n i n g o f l i f e , we l e a r n what and who we a r e f r o m t h e

ways i n w h i c h people i n o u r environment respond t o us. Thus, a sense o f i d e n t i t y i s

c r e a t e d , and t h e process o f i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n , once begun, never ends. Each new

e x p e r i e n c e must be somehow i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g sense o f s e l f , somehow made

m e a n i n g f u l i n terms o f t h e s e l f - i d e n t i t y . C o n d i t i o n s o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y ,

t h e r e f o r e , a r e n o t merely i r r i t a t i n g ; i n p e r s i s t e n t and extreme f o r m , t h e y a r e

i dentity-des troying.
 1-5

Approach and O b j e c t i v e s . The r e s e a r c h d e s c r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters was

based on t h e assumption t h a t t h e quest f o r i d e n t i t y i s i n f a c t a s i g n i f i c a n t problem

f o r many p e o p l e , t h a t t h i s , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h o t h e r needs, leads them t o l o o k f o r

c e r t a i n k i n d s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n t h e work s i t u a t i o n , and t h a t t h e work s i t u a t i o n

f r e q u e n t l y presents c o n d i t i o n s o f a m b i g u i t y and c o n f l i c t r a t h e r than s e c u r i t y and

harmony. The r e s e a r c h was designed t o determine t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f these c o n d i t i o n s ,

and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e . I t was de-

s i g n e d a l s o t o t r a c e t h e e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y on t h e persons exposed t o

them. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , o u r p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e s were:

1. To e x p l o r e t h e e x t e n t o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e a m b i g u i t y i n i n d u s -

t r i a l positions;

2. To i d e n t i f y t h e k i n d s o f s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a

h i g h degree o f c o n f l i c t o r a m b i g u i t y ;

3. To determine t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between such c o n d i t i o n s and s e v e r a l

b r o a d c r i t e r i a o f p e r s o n a l adjustment and e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; and

4. To e x p l o r e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h such e f f e c t s a r e m o d i f i e d by c e r t a i n

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l and o f h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s .

A l l these research o b j e c t i v e s represent a more g e n e r a l theme--that s o c i a l psy-

c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n t h e contemporary environment have m a j o r e f f e c t s on t h e p h y s i c a l

and p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e person. I n a sense t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s s e l f -

evident. I t i s nevertheless l i t t l e e x p l o r e d i n t h e o r y and w i t h o u t major i n f l u e n c e

among p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n t h e h e l p i n g p r o f e s s i o n s . ' The major t h e o r i e s o f mental h e a l t h

and i l l n e s s ( f o r example, p s y c h o a n a l y t i c theory) are h i s t o r i c a l i n t h e i r orientation.

They s e a r c h f o r p a s t causes o f present problems, and seek t o understand p r e s e n t be-

h a v i o r s p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e d a t a . The m a j o r t h e r a p e u t i c approaches

represented by p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , c o u n s e l i n g , and much o f s o c i a l work are c o n s i s t e n t

with this historical orientation. They a r e f o r t h e most p a r t i n d i v i d u a l l y based

and remedial i n t h e i r s t a n c e , seeking t o r e p a i r t h e e f f e c t s o f p a s t s t r e s s by c r e a t i n g

 1-6

some enlargement i n p r e s e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r c a p a c i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l .

The r e s e a r c h program of. w h i c h t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s a p r o d u c t e x e m p l i f i e s a

different approach, and one w h i c h we see as complementary t o therapy i n much t h e

same way t h a t p u b l i c h e a l t h complements t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r a c t i c e o f m e d i c i n e .

Through a s e r i e s o f r e l a t e d s t u d i e s we seek t o discover how much o f p r e s e n t d i s c o m f o r t

and i l l n e s s , how much o f p r e s e n t s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and h e a l t h i s e x p l i c a b l e i n terms

o f t h e contemporary a d u l t environment. I n o t h e r f i e l d s , t h i s approach has proved

powerful. The e l i m i n a t i o n o f a n o p h e l i n e mosquitoes and t h e p u r i f i c a t i o n o f p o l l u t e d

w a t e r s u p p l i e s has achieved what armies o f d o c t o r s and tons o f drugs c o u l d s c a r c e l y

have done.

The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n which we developed f o r t h e s t u d y o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambi-

g u i t y i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s t r e a t e d a t l e n g t h i n Chapter 2. We need mention here only

a few o f t h e major c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which shaped t h e approach and d e s i g n o f t h i s r e -

search. We wanted t o o b t a i n some sense o f t h e p r e v a l e n c e and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e key

c o n d i t i o n s under s t u d y , c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . We wanted, i n o t h e r words, t o l o c a t e

the s o c i e t a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b r e e d i n g grounds f o r these c o n d i t i o n s . I n addition,

we wanted t o know by what means these e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s a r e t r a n s m i t t e d t o the

i n d i v i d u a l ; what experiences are c r e a t e d f o r him by v i r t u e o f t h e degree o f c o n f l i c t

or a m b i g u i t y w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s h i s work r o l e . We wanted t o know whether t h e presence

o f such f a c t o r s a f f e c t s d i f f e r e n t people i n d i f f e r e n t ways, and t o what e x t e n t t h e y

m a n i f e s t d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l s t y l e s o f response i n an a t t e m p t . t o cope w i t h experienced

c o n f l i c t o r ambiguity. F i n a l l y , we wanted t o be a b l e t o separate t h e o b j e c t i v e c o n d i -

t i o n s o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y i n t h e environment from t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experience

o f these c o n d i t i o n s , w h i c h i s i n e v i t a b l y i n d i v i d u a l . The. b r e a d t h and v a r i e t y o f these

r e s e a r c h aims demanded a p a i r o f complementary s t u d i e s — o n e i n v o l v i n g an i n t e n s i v e -

s t u d y o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environment, the other serving the r e -

s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s o f p r e v a l e n c e , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s , and g e n e r a l i t y by g a t h e r i n g d a t a

from a p r o b a b i l i t y sample o f t h e n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n .
 1-7

The achievement o f these r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s I m p l i e s the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f sev-

e r a l classes of variables. There w i l l be, f i r s t of a l l , those v a r i a b l e s w h i c h r e p r e -

s e n t our major c a u s a l factors: c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . These w i l l be based s p e c i f i -

c a l l y on t h e b e h a v i o r s o f members o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h c r e a t e these c o n d i t i o n s

or t h e i r opposites. The second major c l a s s o f v a r i a b l e s w i t h w h i c h we are concerned

includes the responses o f people i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o the v a r y i n g degrees o f c o n f l i c t

and a m b i g u i t y t o w h i c h t h e i r p o s i t i o n s expose them. These responses w i l l c o n s i s t o f

p s y c h o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s . For b o t h the c a u s a l f a c t o r s and the responses

there i s a subsidiary class of v a r i a b l e s which i s perceptual i n nature. Thus, we are

i n t e r e s t e d i n the p e r c e p t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s which lead to t h e i r c r e a t i n g conditions

o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y f o r others. We are i n t e r e s t e d a l s o i n the way i n which the

" v i c t i m s " perceive the o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s which c o n f r o n t them, as w e l l as t h e way

i n w h i c h they respond t o these c o n d i t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n t o these c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s ,

we are i n t e r e s t e d i n t h r e e o t h e r c l a s s e s , w h i c h can be thought o f as p r o v i d i n g the

context i n w h i c h the b a s i c c a u s a l sequence o f c o n f l i c t and response i s worked out.

These t h r e e c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e e n d u r i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

w h i c h can be thought o f as d i s t a l causes o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y ; enduring

p r o p e r t i e s o f the p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g demographic f a c t o r s and a t t r i b u t e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y ,

b o t h o f w h i c h are thought o f p r i m a r i l y as m e d i a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n f l i c t

and a m b i g u i t y on the one hand and the response o f the i n d i v i d u a l on the o t h e r ; and

f i n a l l y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , w h i c h f u n c t i o n i n a manner analogous

to a t t r i b u t e s o f the p e r s o n , i n m o d i f y i n g the e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t and ambiguity.

The p r e s e n t a t i o n of research design and r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i s done i n s i x main •

sections. The f i r s t s e c t i o n , i n a d d i t i o n to the present i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the t o p i c o f

our r e s e a r c h , i n c l u d e s Chapter 2. Chapter 2 p r e s e n t s i n f u l l t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model

w h i c h has been h i n t e d a t i n the p r e c e d i n g paragraphs. I t also provides a description

o f t h e o v e r a l l r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and the procedures o f t h e two r e l a t e d s t u d i e s : the

intensive field s t u d y o f responses t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y i n s i x large . i n -

i
t
 1-8

d u s t r i a l p l a n t s , and t h e n a t i o n w i d e survey o f r e a c t i o n s t o o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e c o n f l i c t s

and ambiguities.

The second s e c t i o n o f t h e book p r e s e n t s t h e main e f f e c t s of c o n f l i c t and ambi-

g u i t y on t h e i n d i v i d u a l , as those e f f e c t s were r e v e a l e d i n the two p r e s e n t s t u d i e s .

t

Role c o n f l i c t and i t s consequences are d e a l t w i t h i n Chapter 3, and r o l e a m b i g u i t y i s

the s u b j e c t o f Chapter 4.
i
j

The t h i r d s e c t i o n of t h e book d e a l s w i t h f a c t o r s a t a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l o f ab-

straction. I t i s concerned w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f c o n f l i c t and stress,

and c o n s i d e r s f o u r such f a c t o r s , each i s a s e p a r a t e c h a p t e r . Chapter 5' d e a l s w i t h t h e

concepts o f systems and sub-systems, r e l a t i n g the i n t e n s i t y o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y

t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r f u n c t i o n i n g across o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s . Chapter 6 deals

w i t h c r e a t i v e p r e s s u r e , i d e n t i f y i n g as a source o f s t r e s s t h e requirement t o produce

i n n o v a t i v e and c r e a t i v e s o l u t i o n s t o problems f o r which r o u t i n e and precedent are

lacking. This r e q u i r e m e n t i s t r e a t e d n o t as i n h e r e n t l y s t r e s s f u l , but r a t h e r as

s t r e s s f u l i n the bureaucratic context. Chapter 7 i s concerned w i t h problems o f rank

and s t a t u s , e x p l o r i n g t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h s t r e s s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f c e r t a i n

p o i n t s o r p o s i t i o n s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , r a t h e r than a p e r m e a t i n g c o n d i t i o n o f o r -

ganization. The f i n a l c h a p t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n , Chapter 8, d e a l s w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

norms as stressors.

The f o u r t h s e c t i o n o f t h e book i s concerned w i t h i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , and

t r e a t s them both, as p o t e n t i a l s t r e s s o r s and as m o d i f i e r s o f s t r e s s .

S e c t i o n F i v e c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e c h a p t e r s , a l l o f w h i c h are devoted t o t h e con-

sequences o f p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e response of t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o d i f f e r i n g

degrees o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . Chapter 10 d e s c r i b e s t h e c o n c e p t u a l approach to

p e r s o n a l i t y employed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h , and p r e s e n t s the major p e r s o n a l i t y measures

w h i c h w e r e used. Chapter 11 deals w i t h e m o t i o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y as a m e d i a t i n g f a c t o r

i n t h e sequence o f s t r e s s and response, w h i l e Chapter 12 p r e s e n t s a s i m i l a r t r e a t m e n t

f o r the f a c t o r of s o c i a b i l i t y .
 1-9

I n t h e c o n c l u d i n g s e c t i o n o f t h e book, S e c t i o n S i x , two s t y l e s o f summary and

i n t e g r a t i o n are attempted. Chapter 13 discusses i n d e t a i l s i x cases o f i n d i v i d u a l s

who, w i t h v a r y i n g degrees o f success, s t r u g g l e t o cope w i t h t h e c o n f l i c t s and ambi-

g u i t i e s o f t h e i r jobs. Chapter 14 p r e s e n t s a summary o f t h e major q u a n t i t a t i v e r e -

s e a r c h f i n d i n g s from b o t h t h e n a t i o n a l survey and t h e i n t e n s i v e study.

 CHAPTER 2.
i

CONCEPTS^ DESIGN, AND MEASUREMENT

T h i s s t u d y o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y i s one o f a number o f researches

w h i c h s h a r e a common and d i s t a n t g o a l : t o make u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h e e f f e c t s o f

the contemporary environment on t h e person, i n c l u d i n g h i s p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l

health. To understand t h e e f f e c t s o f the-environment on a n y t h i n g i m p l i e s , o f

• ' ' / '

c o u r s e , some s y s t e m a t i c way o f v i e w i n g t h e environment. W i t h o u t t h i s , we c o u l d

expect a t b e s t t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f m i s c e l l a n e o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e x t e r n a l

f a c t s and i n d i v i d u a l consequences. We b e g i n by t h i n k i n g o f t h e environment o f

the p e r s o n as c o n s i s t i n g v e r y l a r g e l y o f f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and groups. From

t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w , t h e l i f e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l can be seen as an a r r a y o f r o l e s

w h i c h he p l a y s i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f . o r g a n i z a t i o n s and groups t o w h i c h he be-

longs. These groups and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , o r r a t h e r t h e s u b - p a r t s o f each w h i c h

a f f e c t t h e person d i r e c t l y , t o g e t h e r make up h i s o b j e c t i v e environment. Charac-

J

t e r i s t i c s o f these o r g a n i z a t i o n s and groups (company, u n i o n , c h u r c h , f a m i l y , e t c . )

a f f e c t t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l s t a t e o f t h e p e r s o n , and a r e major d e t e r m i n a n t s

of his behavior.

Given t h i s g e n e r a l approach, our n e x t need i s f o r a t h e o r y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

or a t l e a s t a c o n c e p t u a l language f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f o r g a n i z a -

tion. T h i s i s n o t easy t o come by; i t has been j u s t i f i a b l y observed t h a t rather

l i t t l e has been s a i d about o r g a n i z a t i o n s , b u t t h a t i t has been s a i d over arid over

a g a i n a n d i n many d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s (March and Simon, 1958). Moreover, our r e -

q u i r e m e n t s f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y a r e s t r i n g e n t . I t must be adequate t o

c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e i n d u s t r i a l environment, s i n c e work i s one o f t h e major l i f e roles

and most people work i n i n d u s t r y . We cannot be c o n t e n t , however, w i t h a language

 2-2

w h i c h i s s p e c i f i c o n l y t o i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I f we v i e w t h e s t a t e and be-
h a v i o r o f t h e person as a complex outcome o f t h e pressures t o w h i c h he. i s exposed
i n a l l t h e groups and o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o w h i c h he b e l o n g s , we must have a common
s e t o f c o n c e p t s f o r c h a r a c t e r i z i n g a l l r o l e s i n a l l these o r g a n i z a t i o n s . O t h e r w i s e ,
i t becomes i m p o s s i b l e t o measure and d e s c r i b e t h e i r combined impact or t o compare
the t o t a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l complex o f one i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a n o t h e r . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g
pages we w i l l e l a b o r a t e somewhat our approach t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y , and d e s c r i b e
the m a j o r concepts u t i l i z e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . These i n c l u d e a d e f i n i t i o n o f
o r g a n i z a t i o n , o f r o l e , and o f s e v e r a l r o l e - d e r i v e d concepts l i n k i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n
and i n d i v i d u a l . F i n a l l y , we w i l l propose a m o d e l - f o r e x p l o r i n g t h e e f f e c t s on the
p e r s o n o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y .

Concep t s

We b e g i n by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e o b j e c t i v e environment o f an i n d i v i d u a l

and h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l environment. The o b j e c t i v e environment o f a person c o n s i s t s

of ! ,
r e a l " o b j e c t s and e v e n t s , v e r i f i a b l e o u t s i d e h i s , consciousness and e x p e r i e n c e .
i

The c o n s c i o u s and unconscious r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f the o b j e c t i v e environment comprise

t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l environment o f t h e person.

Organization. The o r g a n i z a t i o n i n . w h i c h -a person h o l d s a j o b , f o r example, e x i s t s i n his

o b j e c t i v e environment; i t i s an o b j e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t t o the "psy-

sological organization 1 1
w h i c h e x i s t s in- the mind o f the j o b - h o l d e r . We d e f i n e an

( o b j e c t i v e ) o r g a n i z a t i o n as an open, dynamic system; t h a t i s , i t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d

by a c o n t i n u i n g process o f i n p u t , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , and o u t p u t . * O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

*The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as an open system, and much o f the

e n s u i n g d i s c u s s i o n , i s based on a f o r t h c o m i n g book by D a n i e l Ratz and
Robert L. Kahn, The S o c i a l Psychology o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
 2-3-

i n p u t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y i n c l u d e s p e o p l e , m a t e r i a l s , and energy; o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

o u t p u t t y p i c a l l y takes t h e form o f p r o d u c t s o r s e r v i c e s , a l t h o u g h i t may c o n s i s t

m a i n l y o f d i r e c t p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e t u r n t o members. The openness o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n

as a system means t h a t i t i s e t e r n a l l y dependent upon i t s environment f o r t h e ab-

s o r p t i o n o f i t s p r o d u c t s and s e r v i c e s , and f o r p r o v i d i n g t h e necessary i n p u t which

r e - a c t i v a t e s t h e process o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and thereby m a i n t a i n s the organization

in existence.
i

The- e s s e n t i a l d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , g i v e n t h i s approach,

are n o t i t s name, i t s p h y s i c a l b o u n d a r i e s , o r i t s l e g a l domain. As an open s o c i a l

system, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n I s d e f i n e d and i t s b o u n d a r i e s determined b y . t h e r e l a t i o n -

s h i p s and p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h c a r r y o u t t h e c o n t i n u i n g c y c l e s o f i n p u t -

transformation-output These, o f c o u r s e , c o n s i s t o f t h e m o t i v a t e d behavior o f

human b e i n g s . I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n holds t o g e t h e r and f u n c t i o n s only

so l o n g as people can be m o t i v a t e d t o perform- the b e h a v i o r s r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n

..the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c y c l e s . Moreover, t h e major d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e b e h a v i o r o f

each p e r s o n i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e t o be found i n t h e b e h a v i o r o f . o t h e r members.

H a v i n g g o t t h i s f a r in. our. d e f i n i t i o n ; . o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , we a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h

an a d d i t i o n a l s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s : What, c o n c e p t s c a n we use t o d e s c r i b e
-
the stable,

s o c i a l l y - c o n t r i v e d , i n t e r r e l a t e d p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o r i n terms o f w h i c h we have

defined organizations? And how can we move, from-such p r o p e r t i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n

t o t h e b e h a v i o r o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e means by w h i c h they a r e

motivated?

Office. Our f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t i n l i n k i n g i n d i v i d u a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n i s t o

l o c a t e t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e t o t a l s e t o f ongoing r e l a t i o n s h i p s and b e h a v i o r s com-

prised by the organization. The key concept f o r doing t h i s i s o f f i c e , by w h i c h we

mean a u n i q u e p o i n t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l space, .where space i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f a

s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r r e l a t e d o f f i c e s and t h e p a t t e r n o f a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with
 2-4

them. O f f i c e i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e l a t i o n a l concept, i n d i c a t i n g t h e person's r e -

l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the system as a whole and w i t h o t h e r members.

Role.. A s s o c i a t e d w i t h each o f f i c e I s a s e t o f a c t i v i t i e s , which we define

as p o t e n t i a l b e h a v i o r s . These a c t i v i t i e s c o n s t i t u t e the r o l e t o be p e r f o r m e d , a t

l e a s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y , by any person who o c c u p i e s t h a t o f f i c e . To understand and

d e s c r i b e t h e means by w h i c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s a t t a i n such p r e d i c t a b l e and dependable

b e h a v i o r , we u t i l i z e a number o f r o l e - r e l a t e d concepts, i n c l u d i n g r o l e s e t o r

c l u s t e r , r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n , - r o l e . p r e s s u r e , r o l e - f o r c e , and r o l e b e h a v i o r .

Role set. Each o f f i c e i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o c e r t a i n o t h e r s ,

l e s s d i r e c t l y t o s t i l l o t h e r s , and perhaps o n l y r e m o t e l y connected t o the remain-

i n g o f f i c e s i n c l u d e d i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . C o n s i d e r . t h e o f f i c e o f press foreman

i n a f a c t o r y manufacturing e x t e r n a l t r i m p a r t s f o r automobiles. The o f f i c e s most

d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h a t o f press foreman m i g h t i n c l u d e g e n e r a l foreman and super-

i n t e n d e n t , from w h i c h press foreman's work assignments emanate and t o w h i c h he

t u r n s f o r a p p r o v a l o f work done.. A l s o d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the o f f i c e o f press

foreman w i l l be the foreman o f the s h e e t - m e t a l shop,, which p r o v i d e s s t o c k f o r t h e

p r e s s e s , the i n s p e c t o r who must pass o r r e j e c t the completed stampings, t h e s h i p p i n g

foreman who r e c e i v e s and packages t h e stampings, and, o f c o u r s e , the f o u r t e e n press

operators. We can imagine the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t spread b e f o r e us l i k e a v a s t

f i s h n e t , i n w h i c h each k n o t r e p r e s e n t s an o f f i c e and each s t r i n g a f u n c t i o n a l r e -

l a t i o n s h i p between o f f i c e s . I f we p i c k up t h e n e t by s e i z i n g any o f f i c e , we see

i m m e d i a t e l y the o f f i c e s t o w h i c h . i t i s d i r e c t l y a t t a c h e d . Thus, when we p i c k t h e

o f f i c e o f press foreman, we f i n d i t a t t a c h e d d i r e c t l y t o - n i n e t e e n o t h e r s - - g e n e r a l

foreman, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , s h e e t - m e t a l foreman., i n s p e c t o r , s h i p p i n g - r o o m foreman,

and f o u r t e e n press o p e r a t o r s . These n i n e t e e n o f f i c e s make up t h e r o l e s e t or

c l u s t e r f o r t h e o f f i c e o f p r e s s foreman.

I n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , each member o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n I s d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f others,, u s u a l l y - t h e occupants o f o f f i c e s a d j a c e n t t o

 2-5

h i s i n t h e w o r k - f l o w s t r u c t u r e . They c o n s t i t u t e h i s r o l e s e t , o r c l u s t e r , and u s u a l l y
i n c l u d e h i s immediate s u p e r v i s o r (and perhaps- h i s s u p e r v i s o r ' s d i r e c t s u p e r i o r ) , h i s
s u b o r d i n a t e s , and c e r t a i n members o f h i s own or. o t h e r departments w i t h whom he must
work c l o s e l y . These o f f i c e s a r e d e f i n e d i n t o h i s r o l e s e t by v i r t u e o f the work-
f l o w , t e c h n o l o g y , and a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e of. the o r g a n i z a t i o n . A l s o i n c l u d e d i n a
person's r o l e s e t may be people who a r e r e l a t e d t o him i n o t h e r w a y s — c l o s e f r i e n d s ,
r e s p e c t e d " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n models," and o t h e r s w i t h i n o r o u t s i d e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
who f o r one reason o r another a r e concerned . w i t h h i s behavior i n h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
r o l e . F o r example, a business man's r o l e s e t ( f o r h i s j o b ) m i g h t i n c l u d e h i s w i f e ,

his c u s t o m e r s , and h i s s u p p l i e r s , e t c . , none o f whom a r e members o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

/'
b u t each o f whom may i n f l u e n c e h i s b e h a v i o r on t h e j o b .
.'i

Role expectations. A l l members o f a person's r o l e s e t thus depend upon h i s

p e r f o r m a n c e i n some f a s h i o n ; they a r e rewarded by i t , or they r e q u i r e i t i n o r d e r t o

perform t h e i r own t a s k s . Because they have a s t a k e i n h i s performance, they develop

b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s about what he should and should n o t do as h i s r o l e . The

p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s h e l d by members o f a r o l e s e t we w i l l r e f e r t o as

role expectations. The r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d f o r a c e r t a i n f o c a l person by some

member o f h i s r o l e s e t w i l l r e f l e c t t h a t member's c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e person's o f f i c e

and o f h i s a b i l i t i e s . The c o n t e n t o f these e x p e c t a t i o n s may i n c l u d e p r e f e r e n c e s

w i t h r e s p e c t t o s p e c i f i c acts and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r s t y l e s ; they may deal

w i t h what t h e person should do, what k i n d . o f p e r s o n he should be, what he should ,

t h i n k o r b e l i e v e , and how he s h o u l d r e l a t e t o o t h e r s . They a r e b y no means r e s t r i c t e d

to t h e " j o b d e s c r i p t i o n " as i t m i g h t be g i v e n by t h e head o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r

prepared .by some s p e c i a l i s t i n p e r s o n n e l . These l a t t e r i n d i v i d u a l s a r e , o f course,

l i k e l y t o be members o f t h e r o l e set f o r many persons i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and they

:

may be h i g h l y i n f l u e n t i a l members.

Sent r o l e . The mention o f i n f l u e n c e r a i s e s a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e s o f d e f i n i t i o n and

 2-6

theory. Role e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a c e r t a i n person and o f f i c e e x i s t i n the minds o f

members o f h i s s e t , and r e p r e s e n t standards I n terms o f w h i c h they e v a l u a t e h i s

performance.

The e x p e c t a t i o n s do n o t remain i n the minds o f members o f the r o l e s e t , how-

ever. They tend t o be communicated i n many ways — sometimes d i r e c t l y , as when a

s u p e r v i s o r i n s t r u c t s a s u b o r d i n a t e i n the requirements o f h i s j o b ; sometimes

i n d i r e c t l y , as when a c o l l e a g u e expresses a d m i r a t i o n o r disappointment i n some be-

havior. The c r u c i a l p o i n t f o r our t h e o r e t i c a l view i s t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s

( p o t e n t i a l behaviors) which d e f i n e a r o l e consist o f the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f members of

the r o l e s e t , and t h a t these e x p e c t a t i o n s are communicated or " s e n t " t o the f o c a l

person*. I n t h i s we are f o l l o w i n g the f o r m u l a t i o n o f Rommetveit (1954)', who refers

t o members o f a r o l e s e t as r o l e senders, and t o t h e i r communicated e x p e c t a t i o n s as

the s e n t role.

Role pressures. The numerous acts w h i c h make up t h e process o f r o l e sending

are n o t m e r e l y i n f o r m a t i o n a l . They are i n f l u e n c e attempts, directed toward the

f o c a l p e r s o n and i n t e n d e d t o b r i n g about c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f the

senders. Such a c t s we w i l l c a l l r o l e p r e s s u r e s . Some o f these pressures (e.g.,

those f r o m s u p e r i o r s ) may be d i r e c t e d toward t h e accomplishment o f f o r m a l l y s p e c i -

f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s of o f f i c e . Others (perhaps from peers o r sub-

o r d i n a t e s ) may be d i r e c t e d toward making l i f e e a s i e r or more p l e a s a n t f o r the

senders themselves. The p r e s s u r e s may come from f o r m a l or i n f o r m a l sources; they

may be " l e g i t i m a t e " or n o t ; in- c o m b i n a t i o n they may n o t conform t o anyone's i d e a l

view of the " j o b . " They may be p r e s c r i p t i v e o r p r o s c r i p t i v e , p u n i t i v e or bene-

volent, subtle and i n d i r e c t o r d i r e c t and b l a t a n t . They a r e , i n s h o r t , whatever

requirements and demands are a c t u a l l y communicated t o t h e f o c a l person.

T h e r e are a number o f dimensions along w h i c h r o l e pressures v a r y , as Gross,

;• I ' ^ _
*We w i l l use the t e r m f o c a l person (sometimes a b b r e v i a t e d as P) t o r e f e r t o any
1

i n d i v i d u a l whose r o l e o r o f f i c e i s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
Mason, and McEachern (195$) have proposed. Some o f the more i m p o r t a n t are":' ' s i g n

( p r e s c r i p t i v e or p r o s c r i p t i v e ) , magnitude ( s t r e n g t h o f the i n f l u e n c e a t t e m p t ) ,

s p e c i f i c i t y ( e x t e n t t o which the expected b e h a v i o r s or a t t r i b u t e s are made concrete

and d e t a i l e d ) , i n t e n s i t y ( e x t e n t t o which the f o c a l person i s allowed freedon of

c h o i c e i n complying or r e f u s i n g c o m p l i a n c e ) , and range o f c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h

compliance i s intended. Of these, we are concerned e s p e c i a l l y w i t h magnitude, the

s t r e n g t h o f the r o l e p r e s s u r e or i n f l u e n c e a t t e m p t . Every attempt at i n f l u e n c e Im-

p l i e s consequences f o r compliance or non-compliance. I n o r g a n i z a t i o n s these com-

monly t a k e the form,of s a n c t i o n s — g r a t i f i c a t i o n s or d e p r i v a t i o n s w h i c h a r o l e sender

m i g h t a t t e m p t t o arrange f o r the f o c a l p e r s o n , depending on h i s h a v i n g conformed, or

not. The a v a i l a b i l i t y and v i s i b i l i t y o f such sanctions i s i m p o r t a n t , whether or not

t h e y are used or even t h r e a t e n e d . The reinforcement o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s w i t h t h e pos-

sibility of sanctions i s the major b a s i s f o r t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n g a i n i n g com-

p l i a n c e w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Role forces. I f we r e g a r d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n from.the vantage p o i n t o f a c e r t a i n

o f f i c e , and the person who occupies i t , we see t h a t t h e members of h i s r o l e s e t and

t h e p r e s s u r e s w h i c h they d i r e c t t o him, are p a r t o f h i s o b j e c t i v e environment. To

. c o n s i d e r h i s compliance or d e v i a t i o n from h i s sent r o l e , however, takes us i m m e d i a t e l y

beyond t h e o b j e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n and environment. Each i n d i v i d u a l responds t o the

o r g a n i z a t i o n i n terms o f h i s p e r c e p t i o n s o f i t , w h i c h may d i f f e r i n v a r i o u s ways from

the a c t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n t h e immediate sense, the i n d i v i d u a l responds n o t t o the

o b j e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n h i s o b j e c t i v e s o c i a l environment, b u t t o t h a t representa-

t i o n o f i t w h i c h i s i n h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l environment. The objective organization

and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a p e r s o n may be congruent or n o t , depending

on h i s a b i l i t y and o p p o r t u n i t y t o p e r c e i v e organizational r e a l i t y . Thus, f o r any

p e r s o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e i s n o t o n l y a sent r o l e , c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e pres-

sures w h i c h are communicated by members o f h i s r o l e s e t , but also a received role,

c o n s i s t i n g of h i s perceptions and c o g n i t i o n s o f what was sent. How closely the

 2-8

r e c e i v e d r o l e corresponds t o t h e sent r o l e i s an e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n f o r each f o c a l

person a n d s e t o f r o l e senders, and w i l l depend on p r o p e r t i e s o f senders, r e c e i v e r ,
s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t o f t h e sent p r e s s u r e s , and t h e l i k e .

I t i s t h e sent r o l e by means o f w h i c h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n communicates t o t h e

person t h e do's and don'ts a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s O f f i c e . I t i s the received role,

however, w h i c h i s t h e immediate i n f l u e n c e on h i s b e h a v i o r and t h e source o f h i s moti-

v a t i o n t o r o l e performance. We can t h i n k o f each sent p r e s s u r e as a r o u s i n g i n the

f o c a l p e r s o n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r c e o f some magnitude and d i r e c t i o n . These we w i l l

c a l l r o l e forces. T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t these m o t i v a t i o n a l r o l e f o r c e s a r e

isomorphic w i t h t h e r o l e pressures w h i c h evoked them. E s p e c i a l l y when r o l e p r e s -

sures a r e seen as i l l e g i t i m a t e o r c o e r c i v e , t h e y may arouse s t r o n g r e s i s t a n c e forces

w h i c h l e a d t o outcomes d i f f e r e n t from or-even o p p o s i t e t o t h e expected behavior.

P r e s s u r e s t o i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i o n r a t e s sometimes r e s u l t i n slow-downs. Moreover,

e v e r y p e r s o n i s s u b j e c t t o a v a r i e t y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r c e s i n a d d i t i o n t o those

w h i c h a r e s t i m u l a t e d by p r e s s u r e s from h i s r o l e s e t i n the work s i t u a t i o n . Role

p r e s s u r e s a r e thus o n l y a p a r t i a l determinant o f behavior on t h e j o b .

I n a d d i t i o n ' t o the m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s aroused by r o l e p r e s s u r e s t h e r e a r e

i m p o r t a n t i n t e r n a l sources o f m o t i v a t i o n f o r r o l e performance. One o f these stems

from t h e i n t r i n s i c s a t i s f a c t i o n w h i c h t h e person may d e r i v e from t h e c o n t e n t o f

the r o l e . The c o n c e r t p i a n i s t has many m o t i v e s w h i c h l e a d him t o g i v e performances;

one o f them i s p r o b a b l y t h e i n t r i n s i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e t u r n he g e t s from e x e r c i s i n g

this s k i l l . But t h e r e i s another k i n d o f "own f o r c e " w h i c h i s i m p o r t a n t i n . the m o t i

v a t i o n o f r o l e behavior. I n a sense,.each person i s .a " s e l f - s e n d e r , " t h a t i s , a

role-sender t o himself. He, t o o , has a c o n c e p t i o n o f h i s o f f i c e , and a s e t o f

a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s about what he s h o u l d and s h o u l d n o t do w h i l e i n t h a t p o s i t i o n .

He has some awareness o f what b e h a v i o r s w i l l f u l f i l l h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , lead,

to t h e accomplishment o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , o r f u r t h e r h i s own i n t e r e s t s
 2-9

He may e v e n have had a major p a r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f o r m a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f h i s

office. Through a l o n g process o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n and f o r m a l t r a i n i n g he has a c q u i r e d

a s e t o f v a l u e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s about h i s own b e h a v i o r and a b i l i t i e s . Following

M i l l e r ( 1 9 6 2 ) , Dai ( 1 9 $ 5 ) , and o t h e r s , we conceive o f t h e person as h a v i n g an

o c c u p a t i o n a l s e l f - i d e n t i t y , and as m o t i v a t e d t o behave i n ways which a f f i r m and

enhance t h e v a l u e d a t t r i b u t e s o f t h a t i d e n t i t y .

' l
. ' > -

Role b e h a v i o r .

The d e f i n i t i o n o f r o l e b e h a v i o r i s s u r p r i s i n g l y e l u s i v e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e ease

w i t h w h i c h we make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n everyday l i f e between b e h a v i o r i n and o u t o f

role.

The f a c t o r y worker a r r i v e s a t t h e p l a n t a t 7:30 i n t h e morning; he goes t o a

machine, and i s g r e e t e d c a s u a l l y by s e v e r a l people i n t h e same a r e a , who seem t o

have e x p e c t e d him. He begins t o operate t h e machine and, except f o r l u n c h and

r e s t p e r i o d s , which seem scheduled, he c o n t i n u e s t o do so u n t i l 4:00 i n t h e a f t e r -

noon. A t t h a t t i m e a w h i s t l e blows; he stops work and leaves t h e p l a n t , along w i t h

many o t h e r s . We have no h e s i t a n c y and r u n no r i s k i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t he has been

behaving i n r o l e - - t h e r o l e o f machine o p e r a t o r i n P l a n t X.

But o u r c o n c l u s i o n has been o v e r - d e t e r m i n e d and thus made s i m p l e . What were

the c r u c i a l f a c t o r s ? The worker's appearance a t a c e r t a i n t i m e and p l a c e , a l o n g

with others? His apparent acceptance by them as a member o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ? The

f a c t t h a t he "punched i n , " thus a f f i r m i n g t h e f o r m a l i t y o f membership--and t h e

r i g h t t o r e c e i v e pay? Or t h e f a c t t h a t he o p e r a t e d t h e machine i n accordance w i t h

the r e q u i r e m e n t s and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f o t h e r s whose work depended on h i s doing so?

Which o f these f a c t s i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f r o l e b e h a v i o r , and

w h i c h a r e not? We can e l i m i n a t e t h e l a t t e r two r e a i l y . Suppose t h a t t h e w o r k e r

had n e g l e c t e d t o "punch i n " ; he might encounter reprimand o r even l o s s o f pay,

b u t he w o u l d have behaved no d i f f e r e n t l y , been accepted no l e s s , and i n our terms

 2-10

been l i t t l e less behaving i n r o l e . Suppose t h a t he had o p e r a t e d h i s machine v e r y

b a d l y , and q u i t e c o n t r a r y t o t h e needs and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f those around him; h i s
r o l e b e h a v i o r would have been u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t o them, b u t i t would have been no
l e s s b e h a v i o r i n r o l e - - a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e y became d i s s a t i s f i e d enough t o e j e c t him.
And thus by a process o f e l i m i n a t i o n we a r r i v e a t t h e d e f i n i n g f a c t o r s : by r o l e
b e h a v i o r we mean b e h a v i o r which i s system r e l e v a n t ( n o t n e c e s s a r i l y congruent w i t h
the e x p e c t a t i o n s and requirements o f o t h e r s ) , and which i s performed by a p e r s o n who
i s a c c e p t e d by o t h e r s as a member o f t h e system. O r d i n a r i l y these c r i t e r i a w i l l be

r e i n f o r c e d by t h e arrangements o f time and space, and by t h e f o r m a l i t i e s and l e -

i

g a l i t i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . But n o t always so.

Moreover, b o t h t h e c r i t e r i a o f membership and system-relevance a r e necessary;

neither i s i n i t s e l f sufficient. I f an a r s o n i s t s e t s f i r e t o a l o c a l p l a n t , this

act i s unquestionably system-relevant b u t i t i s not r o l e behavior. On t h e o t h e r

hand, an employee i n t h e p l a n t i s n o t engaging i n r o l e b e h a v i o r when he wipes h i s

brow o r k i c k s t h e gate on t h e way o u t o f t h e f a c t o r y a t n i g h t ; he i s a member o f

the o r g a n i z a t i o n , b u t these behaviors a r e n o t s y s t e m - r e l e v a n t , n o t i n r o l e .

One o f t h e consequences o f our d e f i n i t i o n o f r o l e b e h a v i o r i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

o f i t s b e i n g determined by f o r c e s and p r e s s u r e s o r i g i n a t i n g q u i t e o u t s i d e t h e o r -

g a n i z a t i o n i n which t h e b e h a v i o r occurs. I f a worker performs v e r y b a d l y on t h e

job because he i s concerned over something h i s w i f e s a i d a t b r e a k f a s t , h i s poor

work i s n e v e r t h e l e s s b e h a v i o r i n r o l e . A t times our focus o f i n t e r e s t shifts,

and we w i s h t o know t h e e f f e c t s o f c e r t a i n c a u s a l f a c t o r s , r e g a r d l e s s o f how many

r o l e s t h e y may permeate. More f r e q u e n t l y we focus on b e h a v i o r i n t h e work r o l e ,

and seek, i t s causes — f i r s t among f o r c e s g e n e r a t e d i n t h e work s i t u a t i o n itself

and t h e n i n e x t r a - o c c u p a t i o n a l p l a c e s .
 2-11

Role C o n f l i c t s .

It I s apparent from the c o n c e p t i o n o f s o c i a l r o l e s o u t l i n e d above t h a t v a r i o u s

members o f the r o l e s e t may h o l d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s toward the f o c a l

person. A t any g i v e n t i m e , they may impose p r e s s u r e s on him toward d i f f e r e n t kinds

of b e h a v i o r . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t these r o l e p r e s s u r e s g i v e r i s e t o r o l e f o r c e s w i t h -

i n him, he w i l l experience a psychological c o n f l i c t . Role c o n f l i c t can be conceptu-

a l i z e d i n two ways: i n terms o f the o p p o s i t i o n o f s e n t r o l e pressures (objective)

and i n terms o f the o p p o s i t i o n o f r o l e f o r c e s ( s u b j e c t i v e ) . We are i n t e r e s t e d i n

the f o r m e r p r i m a r i l y because i t c r e a t e s the latter.

Sent r o l e c o n f l i c t i s d e f i n e d as the simultaneous occurrence o f two ( o r more)

sets of pressures such t h a t compliance w i t h one would make more d i f f i c u l t or render

i m p o s s i b l e compliance w i t h the o t h e r . I n the extreme case, compliance w i t h one set

of pressures excludes c o m p l e t e l y the p o s s i b i l i t y o f compliance w i t h another s e t ;

the two s e t s o f p r e s s u r e s are m u t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y . For example, a person's su-

p e r i o r may make i t c l e a r t o him t h a t he i s expected t o hold h i s subordinates strictly

t o company r u l e s and t o h i g h p r o d u c t i o n schedules. -At the same t i m e , h i s subordinates

may i n d i c a t e i n v a r i o u s ways t h a t they would l i k e l o o s e , r e l a x e d s u p e r v i s i o n , and

t h a t t h e y w i l l make t h i n g s d i f f i c u l t i f they are pushed too hard. The p r e s s u r e s from

above and below, i n t h i s case, are i n c o m p a t i b l e , s i n c e a s t y l e o f s u p e r v i s i o n which

s a t i s f i e s one s e t o f pressures v i o l a t e s the o t h e r s e t . Moreover, cases o f t h i s k i n d

are so common t h a t a whole l i t e r a t u r e has been c r e a t e d on the problem o f the first-

l i n e s u p e r v i s o r as " t h e man i n the m i d d l e , " "master and v i c t i m o f d o u b l e - t a l k . "

When we w i s h t o r e f e r t o t h e o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t o f i n c o m p a t i b l e sent pressures,

we w i l l speak o f sent r o l e c o n f l i c t ; when we speak o n l y o f r o l e c o n f l i c t , the r e f -

erence i s t o a c o n f l i c t o f r o l e f o r c e s — t h e s i m u l t a n t o u s e x i s t e n c e o f two o r more

s e t s o f r o l e f o r c e s i n the f o c a l person's p s y c h o l o g i c a l f i e l d such t h a t behavior

i n accordance w i t h one s e t makes d i f f i c u l t or i m p o s s i b l e t h e b e h a v i o r r e q u i r e d by

another s e t o f f o r c e s .
 2-12

Two i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n s h o u l d be made c l e a r . F i r s t , the i n t e n s i t y

of magnitude o f a person's r o l e c o n f l i c t w i l l depend on t h e r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h o f t h e

f o r c e s , i . e . , i f t h e r e a r e two opposing f o r c e s , t h e g r e a t e r t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e

weaker f o r c e , t h e g r e a t e r t h e c o n f l i c t . Second, t h i s c o n c e p t i o n deals w i t h con-

f l i c t a t a g i v e n moment as i t i s aroused by a g i v e n s e t o f i n t e r n a l events (forces)

and e x t e r n a l events ( p r e s s u r e s ) . The e x t e n t t o which a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l o f con-

f l i c t c h a r a c t e r i z e s a p o s i t i o n over time o r w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o changes i n personnel

i

is a q u e s t i o n t o be determined e m p i r i c a l l y , n o t by d e f i n i t i o n .

Types o f r o l e c o n f l i c t . There a r e s e v e r a l types o f r o l e c o n f l i c t which can be

identified. The f i r s t might be termed i n t r a - s e n d e r c o n f l i c t : different prescrip-

t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s from a g i v e n member o f t h e r o l e s e t may be i n c o m p a t i b l e , as

for example when a s u p e r v i s o r requests a man t o a c q u i r e m a t e r i a l which i s u n a v a i l -

a b l e t h r o u g h normal channels and a t t h e same time p r o h i b i t s v i o l a t i o n s o f normal

channels .

A second type m i g h t be termed i n t e r - s e n d e r c o n f l i c t - - p r e s s u r e s from one r o l e

sender oppose p r e s s u r e s from another sender o r s e t o f senders. The pressures f o r

c l o s e v s . ' l o o s e s u p e r v i s o r y s t y l e s d e s c r i b e d above c o n s t i t u t e an example.

A t h i r d type o f c o n f l i c t we r e f e r t o as i n t e r - r o l e c o n f l i c t . I n this case,

the r o l e pressures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h membership i n one o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e i n c o n f l i c t

w i t h p r e s s u r e s which stem from membership i n o t h e r groups. Demands from r o l e -

senders o n t h e j o b f o r o v e r t i m e o r take-home work may c o n f l i c t w i t h pressures

f r o m ones w i f e t o g i v e u n d i v i d e d a t t e n t i o n t o f a m i l y a f f a i r s d u r i n g evening h o u r s .

The c o n f l i c t a r i s e s between t h e r o l e o f t h e f o c a l person as worker and h i s r o l e

as husband and f a t h e r .

D e s c r i b e d above a r e types o f sent r o l e c o n f l i c t . They w i l l r e g u l a r l y result,

of c o u r s e , i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n f l i c t s f o r t h e f o c a l person. Other types o f con-

f l i c t a r e generated d i r e c t l y by a c o m b i n a t i o n o f sent p r e s s u r e s and i n t e r n a l

 2-13

forces. A major example i s t h e c o n f l i c t w h i c h may e x i s t between t h e needs and

v a l u e s o f a person and t h e demands o f h i s r o l e s e t . T h i s f o u r t h type o f c o n f l i c t

we w i l l c a l l p e r s o n - r o l e c o n f l i c t . . I t can occur when r o l e requirements may v i o l a t e

m o r a l v a l u e s f o r example when pressures on an e x e c u t i v e t o e n t e r . p r i c e - f i x i n g con-

s p i r a c i e s a r e opposed by h i s p e r s o n a l code o f e t h i c s . I n o t h e r cases t h e person's

needs and a s p i r a t i o n s may l e a d t o b e h a v i o r s w h i c h are unacceptable t o members o f h i s

r o l e s e t ; f o r example, an a m b i t i o u s young man may be c a l l e d up s h o r t by h i s a s s o c i a t e s

f o r s t e p p i n g on t h e i r toes w h i l e t r y i n g t o advance i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

A v e r y p r e v a l e n t form o f c o n f l i c t i n i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s can be d i s t i n -

guished as r o l e o v e r l o a d . Overload c o u l d be regarded as a k i n d o f i n t e r - s e n d e r

c o n f l i c t i n which v a r i o u s r o l e senders may h o l d q u i t e l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s that

a p e r s o n p e r f o r m a wide v a r i e t y o f t a s k s , a l l o f w h i c h are m u t u a l l y c o m p a t i b l e i n

the a b s t r a c t . But i t may be v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e f o c a l , p e r s o n t o complete

a l l o f them w i t h i n g i v e n time l i m i t s . He i s l i k e l y t o experience o v e r l o a d as a con-

f l i c t o f p r i o r i t i e s ; he must decide w h i c h pressures t o comply w i t h and which t o

postpone o r d i s r e g a r d . I f i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o deny any o f t h e p r e s s u r e s , he may be

t a x e d beyond t h e l i m i t o f h i s a b i l i t i e s . Thus, o v e r l o a d i n v o l v e s a k i n d o f person-

r o l e c o n f l i c t and i s perhaps b e s t regarded as a complex, emergent type combining

aspects o f I n t e r - s e n d e r and p e r s o n - r o l e c o n f l i c t s (Types 2 and 4 ) .

A l l t h e types o f r o l e c o n f l i c t discussed above have i n common one major

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c — m e m b e r s - o f a r o l e s e t e x e r t i n g r o l e pressures t o change t h e be-

h a v i o r o f a f o c a l person. When such pressures are generated and " s e n t , " t h e y do

n o t e n t e r an o t h e r w i s e empty f i e l d ; t h e f o c a l person i s a l r e a d y i n r o l e , a l r e a d y

behaving, a l r e a d y m a i n t a i n i n g some k i n d o f e q u i l i b r i u m among t h e d i s p a r a t e f o r c e s

and m o t i v e s w h i c h he e x p e r i e n c e s . Pressures t o change, t h e r e f o r e , r e p r e s e n t new

and a d d i t i o n a l forcje s w i t h w h i c h he must cope; by d e f i n i t i o n , t h e y t h reaten an

existing equilibrium. Moreover, t h e s t r o n g e r t h e pressures from r o l e senders

 2-14

toward changes i n t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , the g r e a t e r t h e c o n f l i c t

c r e a t e d f o r him. For example, suppose t h a t s e v e r a l s u b o r d i n a t e s ( r o l e senders)
are t r y i n g s t r e n u o u s l y t o get t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r ( f o c a l person) t o d e l e g a t e more
a u t h o r i t y t o them,, b u t he does n o t comply w i t h these i n f l u e n c e a t t e m p t s . I t f o l -
lows t h a t t h e r e must be o t h e r s t r o n g e r f o r c e s ( e i t h e r i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l i n
o r i g i n ) a g a i n s t such a change. I t m i g h t be t h a t t h e f o c a l person's own s u p e r i o r
has o r d e r e d him t o keep a f i r m hand on the r e i n s o f a u t h o r i t y , o r t h a t t h e b e l i e f s
and v a l u e s o f t h e f o c a l person h i m s e l f make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r him t o assume the
r i s k s o f d e l e g a t i o n . Whatever t h e reason, t h e magnitude o f t h e o b j e c t i v e ( s e n t )
r o l e c o n f l i c t f o r t h e f o c a l person must be a t l e a s t as s t r o n g as t h e u n c u s s e s s f u l

p r e s s u r e s w h i c h h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s are sending i n an attempt t o change h i s b e h a v i o r .

i' - '•
Even i n t h e extreme case o f a person who s a t i s f i e d a l l h i s r o l e senders but

n o t h i m s e l f , we would c o n c e p t u a l i z e the s t r e n g t h o f t h e c o n f l i c t i n terms o f the

f o r c e s g e n e r a t e d i n t e r n a l l y (and u n s u c c e s s f u l l y ) t o r e s i s t t h e e x t e r n a l pressures

o f r o l e senders. I n t h i s case, o f course, t h e sent pressures from r o l e senders

would be t o " c o n t i n u e w i t h o u t change," w n i l e t h e " s e l f - s e n d i n g " would be d i r e c t e d

toward change. We have n o t a t t e m p t e d t o measure t h i s k i n d o f c o n f l i c t situation

i n the present. study. I n s t e a d , we have attempted t o develop a comprehensive

measure o f t h e combined magnitude of a l l t h e sent pressures t o change which are

d i r e c t e d t o each f o c a l person. T h i s measure we r e g a r d as a p p r o x i m a t i n g the degree

o f o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t t o w h i c h each such person i s s u b j e c t e d .

The Concept o f Role A m b i g u i t y

Much o f r o l e c o n f l i c t , as we have d e f i n e d i t , can be thought o f as a k i n d

o f i n a d e q u a t e r o l e sending; l a c k o f agreement o r c o o r d i n a t i o n among r o l e senders

produces a p a t t e r n o f sent e x p e c t a t i o n s which c o n t a i n s l o g i c a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s

or which takes inadequate account o f t h e needs and a b i l i t i e s o f the f o c a l person.

A d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f inadequacy i n r o l e sendings c o n s t i t u t e s r o l e a m b i g u i t y .
 2-15

E a c h member of an o r g a n i z a t i o n must have c e r t a i n kinds of information a t h i s

d i s p o s a l i f he i s to perform h i s job adequately. Communication processes and the

d i s t r i b u t i o n of information are matters of concern I n every o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a r e

c l o s e l y l i n k e d to c r i t e r i a of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of

r o l e - r e l a t e d information a l s o may have profound i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r personal a d j u s t -

ment and emotional well-being.

As w i t h r o l e c o n f l i c t , we d i s t i n g u i s h between o b j e c t i v e ambiguity and i t s sub-

j e c t i v e counterpart. Objective ambiguity i s a c o n d i t i o n i n the environment; sub-

j e c t i v e o r experienced ambiguity i s a p e r c e p t u a l - c o g n i t i v e s t a t e of the person. The

meaning o f t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n can be I l l u m i n a t e d by means of an analogy from the f i e l d

of meterology. One property of the atmosphere, of concern to a i r p l a n e p i l o t s among

o t h e r s , i s the degree of " v i s i b i l i t y . " Visibility i s described i n terms of how w e l l

a person w i t h 20-20 v i s i o n might be expected to see i n a given environment; i t i s the

d i s t a n c e a t which he can be expected to make c e r t a i n v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s . Thus,

the concept of v i s i b i l i t y i s u l t i m a t e l y response-based, but i t i s independent of

the v i s u a l a c u i t y of any given p e r c e i v e r . Moreover, i n I t s operational form, v i s i -

b i l i t y i s not a property of the p e r c e i v e r at a l l . I t r e f e r s I n s t e a d to the density

of m o i s t u r e and dust p a r t i c l e s i n the a i r . I t s major importance l i e s i n the extent

to which i t i n f l u e n c e s v i s i o n , and the measurement of v i s i b i l i t y i s customarily ex-

pressed i n terms commensurate w i t h the v i s i o n process.

The concept of o b j e c t i v e ambiguity, as used here, i s s i m i l a r l y constructed. It

c h a r a c t e r i z e s c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s of the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment i n terms

of t h e i r l i k e l y I n f l u e n c e on the perceptual and c o g n i t i v e processes of a "normal"

person. T h e i r a c t u a l I n f l u e n c e on a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t i t u t e s h i s sub-

j e c t i v e ( e x p e r i e n c e d ) ambiguity i n that p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . Thus, o b j e c t i v e

ambiguity i s to v i s i b i l i t y as experienced ambiguity i s to v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ;

 2-16

t h e f o r m e r concepts r e f e r r i n g t o s t a t e s o f t h e environment and t h e l a t t e r t o

p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes i n t h e person w h i c h may be a f f e c t e d by t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l

states.

B o t h a m b i g u i t y concepts assume a. need f o r and, i n some degree, t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of -certain kinds o f i n f o r m a t i o n . Some k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n are r e -

q u i r e d f o r adequate r o l e performance, i . e . , i n o r d e r f o r a person t o conform t o

the r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by members o f h i s r o l e s e t . F i r s t o f a l l , he must know

what these e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e ; t h e r i g h t s , d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f h i s o f f i c e .

Second, he must know something about what a c t i v i t i e s on h i s p a r t w i l l f u l f i l l these

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and how they can b e s t be performed. I n o t h e r words, he r e q u i r e s

v a r i o u s s o r t s o f "means-ends" knowledge. He wants a l s o t o know t h e p o t e n t i a l con-

sequences o f h i s r o l e performance o r non-performance--for h i m s e l f , h i s r o l e senders,

and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n g e n e r a l .

Some k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n are r e q u i r e d f o r p e r s o n a l c o m f o r t and p s y c h o l o g i c a l

return. I n g e n e r a l , one needs t o know what k i n d s o f b e h a v i o r w i l l be rewarded or

punished, t h e n a t u r e o f t h e rewards and punishments, and t h e l i k e l i h o o d ; o f t h e i r

occurrence. He needs t o know what k i n d s o f b e h a v i o r s w i l l be s a t i s f y i n g o r

I

f r u s t r a t i n g f o r h i s p e r s o n a l needs and v a l u e s , what dangers and what o p p o r t u n i t i e s

e x i s t i n t h e environment. Some k i n d s o f needs, v a l u e s , and a s p i r a t i o n s a r e h e l d

s u f f i c i e n t l y i n common among t h e members o f a p a r t i c u l a r p o p u l a t i o n t h a t , r e g a r d -

l e s s o f what p a r t i c u l a r person occupies a g i v e n p o s i t i o n , t h e requirement f o r

c e r t a i n types o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r e d i c t a b l e .

The concept o f o b j e c t i v e a m b i g u i t y does n o t , o f c o u r s e , i m p l y ; a need f o r i n -

i

f o r m a t i o n as e x i s t i n g i n t h e environment. Needs e x i s t i n ( o r c h a r a c t e r i z e ) people.

C e r t a i n k i n d s o f common needs, however, s p e c i f y t h e k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h people

g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e , and p e r m i t us t o compare environments w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r p r o -

v i s i o n o f such i n f o r m a t i o n . For example, needs f o r b o d i l y s a f e t y are p r e s e n t i n

 2-17

v i r t u a l l y everyone, and we thus need t o know o f p h y s i c a l dangers p r e s e n t around us.

To some degree s e c u r i t y needs a r e p r e s e n t i n a l l o f u s , and i n f o r m a t i o n about t h r e a t s
t o our s e c u r i t y i s r e q u i r e d i f we are t o cope w i t h those t h r e a t s r e a l i s t i c a l l y . Needs
f o r l o v e , f o r r e c o g n i t i o n and achievement, f o r money, and so o n — t h e l i s t c o u l d be ex-
tended c o n s i d e r a b l y - - a r e , s u f f i c i e n t l y w i d e - s p r e a d i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n ' t h a t i t seems
r e a s o n a b l e t o e v a l u a t e environments i n terms o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o these needs,
even w i t h o u t knowing the s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s o f t h e needs i n any person i n t h o s e en-
v i r o n m e n t s . Thus, f o r example, a m b i g u i t y - - t h e l a c k o f c l e a r c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n —
about f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y i n a g i v e n p o s i t i o n i s a p t t o be s t r e s s f u l f o r almost anyone
who m i g h t occupy t h a t p o s i t i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n about o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r advancement,
about r e s p e c t and acceptance by o t h e r s , about w h i c h b e h a v i o r s l e a d t o rewards and
w h i c h t o punishment, e t c . , i s r e q u i r e d f o r most o f us t o be p e r s o n a l l y c o m f o r t a b l e
i n our j o b s .

Lack o f i n f o r m a t i o n a t a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n can r e s u l t f r o m

many causes. Under some c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n j u s t does n o t e x i s t .

Who can c o n f i d e n t l y p r e d i c t , f o r example, when t h e n e x t r e c e s s i o n m i g h t come o r

what s c i e n t i f i c " b r e a k t h r o u g h " m i g h t lead t o m a j o r changes i n p r o d u c t s o r p r o d u c t i o n

techniques? I n o t h e r cases, t h e r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t s b u t may n o t be a v a i l a b l e

t o t h e p e r s o n who needs i t . For example, c l e a r - c u t plans f o r a r e d u c t i o n o f s t a f f

may have been f o r m u l a t e d by an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s e x e c u t i v e s , b u t t h e workers whose jobs

are about t o be d e l e t e d f r o m t h e t a b l e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n may know n o t h i n g o f t h e s e

p l a n s n o r o f t h e l e n g t h o f time t h e i r employment m i g h t c o n t i n u e . Ambiguity i n a

g i v e n p o s i t i o n may r e s u l t e i t h e r from n o n - e x i s t e n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n o r from i n a d e -

quate communication o f a v a i l a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n t o t h a t p o s i t i o n .

Experienced ambiguity i s a c o g n i t i v e - p e r c e p t u a l s t a t e o f a person. I t i s t h e expected

consequence o f a m b i g u i t y , b u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l e s s than p e r f e c t . A person's

p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s environment-and h i s knowledge o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f h i s b e h a v i o r

may n o t r e f l e c t t h e r e a l w o r l d adequately. H i s c o g n i t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n may be c l e a r

t
 2-18

and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d o r b l u r r e d and beclouded w i t h c o n f u s i o n . I n g e n e r a l , we expect

some c o n s i d e r a b l e correspondence between o b j e c t i v e and experienced a m b i g u i t y , and

we have chosen t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e a m b i g u i t y e x p e r i e n c e . We expect a l s o t h a t t h e

g r e a t e r t h e e x p e r i e n c e d a m b i g u i t y , t h e more t h e person experiences t e n s i o n and

anxiety. There a r e , o f c o u r s e , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e tendency t o respond

n e g a t i v e l y t o ambiguity. Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) i n v e s t i g a t e d a dimension o f per-

s o n a l i t y w h i c h she c a l l e d " i n t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y . " Cohen, S t o t l a n d , and Wolfe

(1955) developed a measure o f "need f o r c o g n i t i o n " - - a need ( d i f f e r i n g i n s t r e n g t h

from p e r s o n t o person and v a r y i n g t h r o u g h t i m e depending on s t a t e o f a r o u s a l ) f o r

c l e a r , o r d e r l y , and m e a n i n g f u l c o g n i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s . When t h i s need i s s t r o n g ,

the person i s n o t only i n t o l e r a n t o f ambiguity, b u t s t r i v e s a c t i v e l y f o r c l a r i t y

and s t r u c t u r e . T h i s need i s ho doubt i n s t r u m e n t a l t o t h e g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f o t h e r

needs; t h a t i s , we a r e b e t t e r able t o g r a t i f y o u r needs and a t t a i n bur goals i f we

c l e a r l y p e r c e i v e t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d and can a n t i c i p a t e f u t u r e e v e n t s . Our w o r k i n g

hypotheses a r e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n t h e degree t o w h i c h t h e a m b i g u i t y experience

i s a s o u r c e o f s t r a i n , b u t t h a t i t i s g e n e r a l l y s t r e s s f u l and c r e a t e s v a r i o u s mani-

festations of strain.

Some i m p o r t a n t ' a r e a s o f a m b i g u i t y i n o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e s . A person may be un-

c e r t a i n a b o u t many f a c e t s o f h i s s o c i a l o r p h y s i c a l environment. I n organizations

t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l areas o f a m b i g u i t y w h i c h a r e f r e q u e n t l y encountered, and w h i c h

people o f t e n f i n d s t r e s s f u l . A l l . t o o o f t e n people a r e u n c l e a r about t h e scope o f

t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; t h e y s i m p l y do n o t know what they a r e "supposed" t o do.

When p e o p l e know what t o do, they do n o t always know how. Such u n c e r t a i n t i e s o f t e n

a r i s e because t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s d e f i n i n g t h e r o l e a r e themselves vague and i n c o n s i s t e n t .

People may a l s o be u n c e r t a i n as t o whose e x p e c t a t i o n s they a r e r e q u i r e d t o meet.

A person may be unable t o d i s t i n g u i s h between h i s " l e g i t i m a t e " r o l e senders and o t h e r s

whose e x p e c t a t i o n s he can i g n o r e w i t h i m p u n i t y . Moreover, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t

 2-19

secondary a m b i g u i t i e s c e n t e r around a v a i l a b l e channels o f communication and techniques

o f i n f l u e n c e , t h e person w i l l n o t know how t o r e s o l v e t h e p r i m a r y a m b i g u i t i e s from
w h i c h he s u f f e r s .

We must expect t h a t a m b i g u i t y w i l l i n c r e a s e as o b j e c t s and events recede i n

space and t i m e . One i s seldom v e r y c l e a r about t h e long-range consequences o f h i s

a c t i o n s f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole. He may a l s o be u n c e r t a i n about t h e s h o r t e r

range e f f e c t s o f h i s b e h a v i o r , e.g., e f f e c t s on p r o g r e s s toward departmental goals o r

on t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f h i s a s s o c i a t e s , e t c . Perhaps more d i s t r e s s i n g a r e a m b i g u i t i e s

about t h e consequences o f ones a c t i o n s f o r o n e s e l f . Doubts about how o t h e r s evaluate

us, about how s a t i s f i e d they a r e w i t h o u r performance a r e f r e q u e n t sources o f a n x i e t y .

A c l e a r , m e a n i n g f u l and s a t i s f y i n g s e l f - i d e n t i t y r e s t s i n p a r t on c l e a r and c o n s i s t e n t

" f e e d b a c k " from those around us. Such feedback i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t i f one i s t o a n t i -

c i p a t e a c c u r a t e l y t h e rewards and punishments he m i g h t r e c e i v e from h i s associates.

Thus, f o r many purposes, i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l c l i m a t e and about t h e

a p p r a i s a l o f ones performance may be as i m p o r t a n t as knowing t h e s p e c i f i c content

of the j o b .

So f a r , we have discussed ambiguity i n terms o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f needed i n -

f o r m a t i o n , a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h i n some degree c h a r a c t e r i z e s every p o s i t i o n i n an

organization. A l t h o u g h t h e c r u c i a l question,, from t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w , i s t h e e x t e n t

t o w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d a t each f o c a l p o s i t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e , t h e r e a r e many

d i f f e r e n t causes w h i c h can produce t h i s common e f f e c t . To p u t i t d i f f e r e n t l y , we

may want t o d i s t i n g u i s h f o r some purposes t h e i n i t i a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f a m b i g u i t y ,

as w e l l as t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h aspects o f a g i v e n f o c a l p o s i t i o n a r e ambiguous.

Thus, t h e a m b i g u i t y o f a g i v e n p o s i t i o n may r e s u l t from t h e f a c t t h a t r e q u i r e d i n -

f o r m a t i o n i s n o t a v a i l a b l e anywhere i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n may be

a v a i l a b l e a t some p o i n t i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n b u t n o t i n t h e r o l e s e t o f t h e f o c a l

p o s i t i o n f o r which the i n f o r m a t i o n i s required. Coming c l o s e r t o t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n ,

we f i n d cases i n w h i c h r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e r o l e s e t b u t i s n o t
 2-20

communicated t o t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , as when s u b o r d i n a t e s w i t h h o l d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m a

d i s l i k e d or untrusted superior. Kven when one o r more members o f the r o l e s e t

a t t e m p t t o communicate i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a m b i g u i t y remains. The commu-

n i c a t i o n process between any p a i r o f persons may be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y c l e a r o r n o t ,

and any message may be fragmentary o r g a r b l e d . F i n a l l y , where s e v e r a l r o l e senders

are communicating t o t h e f o c a l person r e g a r d i n g t h e same c o n d i t i o n or e v e n t , t h e mes-

sages may be c o n t r a d i c t o r y and thus produce c o n f u s i o n and u n c e r t a i n t y . I t i s this

l a s t form o f ambiguity w h i c h l i n k s t h e concept so c l o s e l y t o t h a t o f r o l e c o n f l i c t .

To summarize, r o l e a m b i g u i t y i s c o n c e i v e d as the degree t o w h i c h r e q u i r e d i n -

formation i s a v a i l a b l e t o a given o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t such

i n f o r m a t i o n i s communicated c l e a r l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y t o a f o c a l person, i t w i l l tend

to i n d u c e i n him an e x p e r i e n c e o f c e r t a i n t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s r o l e r e q u i r e m e n t s and

his place i n the organization. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t such i n f o r m a t i o n i s l a c k i n g , he

w i l l experience ambiguity. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n o f am-

b i g u i t y and t h e i n t e n s i t y o f t h e a m b i g u i t y experience f o r a c e r t a i n person w i l l be

modified by v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y p r o p e r t i e s . The a m b i g u i t y experience i s p r e d i c t a b l y

associated w i t h t e n s i o n and a n x i e t y , and w i t h a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h the

demands and r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e r o l e a r e s u c c e s s f u l l y met.

A T h e o r e t i c a l Model o f F a c t o r s I n v o l v e d i n Role C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y .

An adequate u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f processes o f adjustment t o s t r e s s e s i n organizations

must t a k e i n t o account many f a c t o r s . O r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e complex and t h e l n t e r d e p e n -

d e n c i e s among members a r e b o t h p o t e n t and s u b t l e . The p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f members,

e s p e c i a l l y those whose adjustments a r e t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d , must be c o n s i d e r e d , as must

be t h e p a t t e r n o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s among t h e members. Processes o f communication and

s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e a r e o f major concern, and so are the i n t r a p s y c h i c processes involved

i n c o p i n g w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n f l i c t , t e n s i o n , and a n x i e t y . Moreover, t h e s e many

v a r i a b l e s tend t o be r e l a t e d i n complex ways. A t h e o r e t i c a l model, p r o v i d i n g a

 2-21

g e n e r a l o r i e n t a t i o n t o the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h e major groups o f v a r i a b l e s , i s essential.

F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e . c o r e o f such a model, b u i l t around the n o t i o n o f a r o l e episode;

t h a t i s , a complete c y c l e o f r o l e s e n d i n g , response by the f o c a l p e r s o n , and t h e e f -

f e c t s o f t h a t response on t h e r o l e senders.

I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here

The f o u r boxes r e p r e s e n t events t h a t c o n s t i t u t e a r o l e e p i s o d e . The arrows con-

n e c t i n g them i m p l y a c a u s a l sequence. Role p r e s s u r e s a r e assumed t o o r i g i n a t e i n the

e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by members o f t h e r o l e s e t . Role senders have e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d -

i n g t h e way i n w h i c h t h e f o c a l r o l e s h o u l d be performed. They a l s o have p e r c e p t i o n s

r e g a r d i n g t h e way i n w h i c h t h e f o c a l person i s a c t u a l l y p e r f o r m i n g . They correlate

the two, and e x e r t p r e s s u r e s t o make h i s performance congruent w i t h t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s .

These p r e s s u r e s induce i n t h e f o c a l person ah e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h has b o t h p e r c e p t u a l and cog-

nitive properties, and w h i c h leads i n t u r n t o c e r t a i n a d j u s t i v e (or maladjustive)

responses. The responses o f t h e f o c a l person are t y p i c a l l y observed by those exerting

t h e p r e s s u r e s and t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s are c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y a d j u s t e d . Thus, f o r b o t h

the r o l e senders and t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , t h e episode i n v o l v e s e x p e r i e n c e and t h e response.

Let us l o o k a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f these f o u r boxes and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s i n more d e t a i l .

The e p i s o d e S t a r t s w i t h , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s e t o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by

r o l e senders about a f o c a l person and h i s b e h a v i o r on the j o b . * The e x p e r i e n c e o f

the r o l e senders i n c l u d e s p e r c e p t u a l , c o g n i t i v e , and e v a l u a t i v e components, as we

have a l r e a d y observed. Speaking o f r o l e senders as a group i s a m a t t e r o f convenience.

I n f a c t , each r o l e sender behaves toward t h e f o c a l person i n ways determined by h i s

own e x p e c t a t i o n s and h i s own a n t i c i p a t i o n s o f t h e f o c a l person's responses. Under

c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e ' r o l e sender, r e s p o n d i n g t o h i s own immediate e x p e r i e n c e ,

expresses h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s o v e r t l y ; he a t t e m p t s t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o c a l person i n t h e

1. Role e x p e c t a t i o n s , o f c o u r s e , have t h e i r a n t e c e d e n t s , b u t these w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d

below as t h e model I s extended.
 Role Senders F o c a l person

Experience ?? P? f
s ns Experience Response

Role Role pressure^] Psychological Coping e f f o r t s ;

expectations; objective role conflict; compliance;
perception of conflict; "exper ienced sympton
focal person s
1
objective ambiguity; formation;
behavior; ambiguity. perception of tension level.
evaluations. r o l e and r o l e
senders.

II III IV

F i g u r e 1. A model o f t h e r o l e episode
 2-23

d i r e c t i o n o f g r e a t e r c o n f o r m i t y w i t h h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s . I t i s n o t uncommon f o r a
r o l e sender t o be r e l a t i v e l y unaware t h a t h i s b e h a v i o r i s i n f a c t an i n f l u e n c e a t t e m p t .
Even m i l d communications about a c t u a l and expected r o l e performance u s u a l l y c a r r y an
e v a l u a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n . I t i s an assumption o f our r e s e a r c h t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , r o l e
e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e communicated; more s p e c i f i c a l l y we assume t h a t r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
l e a d t o r o l e p r e s s u r e s , b u t t h a t t h e r e i s no s i m p l e ismorphism between them.

To d e t e r m i n e t h e l i k l i h o o d and n a t u r e o f sent r o l e p r e s s u r e s , t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s

o f each r o l e sender must be i n v e s t i g a t e d separately. To understand t h e degree o f

c o n f l i c t o r ambiguity i n the r o l e , the t o t a l p a t t e r n o f such e x p e c t a t i o n s and p r e s -

sures must be c o n s i d e r e d . A thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o a l l the r o l e expectations

h e l d a t a g i v e n moment by a l l t h e members o f t h e r o l e s e t should y i e l d an i n d i c a t i o n

of the p o t e n t i a l i n the s i t u a t i o n f o r c o n f l i c t . The a c t u a l degree o f o b j e c t i v e role

c o n f l i c t w i l l depend on t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s a c t u a l l y e x e r t e d by r o l e

senders o n t h e f o c a l person. H i s e x p e r i e n c e o f t h i s c o n f l i c t w i l l i n t u r n depend

upon i t s o b j e c t i v e magnitude and on c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f o c a l person him-

self. L i k e w i s e , t h e p o t e n t i a l degree o f c l a r i t y o r a m b i g u i t y i n a r o l e can be

assessed by i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l e v a n t information w i t h i n the role

set. The degree o f o b j e c t i v e a m b i g u i t y f o r a f o c a l p o s i t i o n w i l l depend, o f course,

on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of that information t o the p o s i t i o n . The e x p e r i e n c e d a m b i g u i t y

o f t h e occupant o f t h a t p o s i t i o n w i l l r e f l e c t the o b j e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n as i t i n t e r a c t s

with relevant properties o f t h e person ( f o r example, need f o r c o g n i t i o n ) .

D i r e c t e f f e c t s o f r o l e pressures. Arrow 1 i n d i c a t e s that the t o t a l set o f role

p r e s s u r e s a f f e c t s t h e immediate e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e f o c a l person i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n

(Box I I I ) . T h i s e x p e r i e n c e t y p i c a l l y has b o t h p e r c e p t u a l and c o g n i t i v e aspects. I t

would i n c l u d e , f o r example, t h e f o c a l person's p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e demands and r e q u i r e -

ments p l a c e d on him by h i s r o l e senders and h i s awareness o r e x p e r i e n c e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l

conflict. I n g e n e r a l , we expect t h e f o c a l person's e x p e r i e n c e o f a s i t u a t i o n t o be a

function o f the objective demands and pressures t o w h i c h he i s s u b j e c t e d a t t h a t

 2-24

moment. When h i s a s s o c i a t e s a r e g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i v e o f h i s p r e s e n t performance, we

expect them t o be so p e r c e i v e d and t h e response t o be p r i m a r i l y one o f s a t i s f a c t i o n

and c o n f i d e n c e . When pressures from a s s o c i a t e s are e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g and d i r e c t e d

toward changes i n t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , o r when t h e y a r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y

t o one a n o t h e r , the experience i s a p t t o be f r a u g h t w i t h c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y , and

t o evoke responses o f t e n s i o n , anger, o r i n d e c i s i o n . These, however, a r e g e n e r a l

p r e d i c t i o n s ; we do n o t expect them t o h o l d a l i k e f o r a l l f o c a l persons.

The s p e c i f i c r e a c t i o n s o f each f o c a l person t o a s i t u a t i o n a r e i m m e d i a t e l y de-

t e r m i n e d by t h e n a t u r e o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n . F o r example, t h e l i k e l i -

hood o f h i s a t t e m p t i n g r a t i o n a l problem s o l v i n g w i l l depend on t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s he

p e r c e i v e s f o r c r e a t i n g changes i n t h e s i t u a t i o n o r i n h i s own b e h a v i o r w h i c h w i l l be

a c c e p t a b l e t o a l l concerned. On the o t h e r hand, as c o n f l i c t and t e n s i o n become more

s e v e r e , he i s more l i k e l y t o become e g o - d e f e n s i v e and t o f a l l back on o t h e r c o p i n g

t e c h n i q u e s , some o f which may be m a l a d a p t i v e i n the l o n g r u n because t h e y t e n d t o

create g r e a t e r pressures o r increased t e n s i o n .

The p e r s o n who i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s i t u a t i o n o f r o l e c o n f l i c t must respond to

i t i n some f a s h i o n . One o r more o f r o l e senders are e x e r t i n g p r e s s u r e on h i m t o change

his b e h a v i o r , and he must cope somehow w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e t h e y a r e e x e r t i n g . ^ Whatever

p a t t e r n o f response he adopts may be regarded as an a t t e m p t t o a t t a i n o r r e g a i n an

a d e q u a t e l y g r a t i f y i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n the work s i t u a t i o n . Of s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to

us a r e c e r t a i n i d e n t i f i a b l e c o p i n g responses. These i n c l u d e d i r e c t attempts a t

s o l v i n g t h e o b j e c t i v e problem by compliance o r by p e r s u a d i n g r o l e senders t o modify

i n c o m p a t i b l e demands. Coping w i l l a l s o t a k e the' form o f a t t e m p t s t o a v o i d t h e sources

of s t r e s s , and t h e use o f defense mechanisms w h i c h d i s t o r t t h e r e a l i t y o f a con-

f l i c t u a l o r ambiguous s i t u a t i o n i n o r d e r t o r e l i e v e the a n x i e t y o f the u n d i s t o r t e d

experience. There i s a l s o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t coping w i t h t h e pressures o f t h e work

w i l l i n v o l v e t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a f f e c t i v e o r p h y s i o l o g i c a l symptoms. Regardless o f

w h i c h o f t h e s e , s i n g l y o r i n c o m b i n a t i o n , t h e f o c a l person uses, h i s b e h a v i o r c a n be

assessed i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s and s e n t pressures o f each o f h i s r o l e senders.

 2-25

E f f e c t s o f response on r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . The degree t o which t h e f o c a l person's

b e h a v i o r conforms t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d f o r him w i l l a f f e c t the s t a t e o f those
e x p e c t a t i o n s a t t h e n e x t moment. I f h i s response i s e s s e n t i a l l y a h o s t i l e counter-
a t t a c k , h i s r o l e senders are a p t t o t h i n k o f him and behave toward him i n ways q u i t e
d i f f e r e n t than i f he were s u b m i s s i v e l y c o m p l i a n t . I f he complies p a r t i a l l y under
p r e s s u r e , t h e y may i n c r e a s e the p r e s s u r e ; i f he i s o b v i o u s l y overcome w i t h t e n s i o n
and a n x i e t y , t h e y may " l a y o f f . " I n sum, t h e r o l e episode i s a b s t r a c t e d from a
process w h i c h i s c y c l i c and ongoing: t h e response o f t h e f o c a l person t o r o l e pres-
sures " f e e d s back" on the senders o f those p r e s s u r e s i n ways t h a t a l t e r o r r e i n f o r c e
them. The n e x t r o l e sendings o f each member o f t h e s e t depend"on h i s e v a l u a t i o n s
o f t h e response t o h i s l a s t sendings, and t h u s a new episode begins

I n o r d e r t o understand more f u l l y the c a u s a l dynamics o f such episodes and their

consequences f o r t h e person's a d j u s t m e n t , t h e model must be extended t o i n c l u d e t h r e e

a d d i t i o n a l c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s - - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , p e r s o n a l i t y

f a c t o r s , and t h e c h a r a c t e r o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s between the f o c a l person and

his r o l e senders. Taken i n c o m b i n a t i o n , t h e s e f a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t t h e c o n t e x t w i t h i n

w h i c h t h e episode o c c u r s .

A t t h i s p o i n t we move t o a somewhat d i f f e r e n t l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s . I n Figure 1

the boxes r e p r e s e n t events--occurrences a t a g i v e n moment i n t i m e . The d i r e c t e d lines

r e p r e s e n t a c a u s a l sequence: sent p r e s s u r e s ( I I ) l e a d t o experienced c o n f l i c t (III),

w h i c h l e a d s t o c o p i n g responses ( I V ) ; these are p e r c e i v e d and e v a l u a t e d i n r e l a t i o n

t o e x p e c t a t i o n s ( I ) , and t h e c y c l e resumes. F i g u r e 1 a l s o forms t h e c o r e o f Figure 2.

However, t h e c i r c l e s i n F i g u r e 2 r e p r e s e n t n o t momentary events b u t e n d u r i n g s t a t e s

i
I 1

of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e person, and t h e I n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s between f o c a l

person and r o l e senders. An a n a l y s i s o f these f a c t o r s w i l l make more understandable

the sequence o f events i n a r o l e e p i s o d e . The p r o p e r t i e s and t r a i t s w h i c h make up

 2-26

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e p e r s o n , and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are f o r the most p a r t ab-

s t r a c t i o n s and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s based upon r e c u r r e n t events and b e h a v i o r s , f o r

example, c h a r a c t e r i z i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p as f r i e n d l y means s i m p l y t h a t the p a r t i e s to

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h i n k w e l l o f each o t h e r and behave i n a p l e a s a n t s u p p o r t i v e manner

t o w a r d one another. I t i s such r e p e t i t i o n s and p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o r s and events which

g i v e us a basis f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g each new. e v e n t .

Organizational antecedent o f t h e person's r o l e . To a considerable extent, the

r o l e expectations h e l d by the members o f a r o l e s e t - - t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s and proscriptions

associated w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n - r a r e d e t e r m i n e d by the broader o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

context. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , the f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and d i v i s i o n o f

l a b o r , and the f o r m a l reward system, w h i c h may have been s p e c i f i e d by the organization's

d i r e c t o r s and are now m a t t e r s o f r e c o r d and p o l i c y , d i c t a t e the major c o n t e n t of a

given o f f i c e . What the occupant o f t h a t o f f i c e i s "supposed" t o do, w i t h and for

whom, is. g i v e n by these and o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n i t s e l f . Although

o t h e r human beings are doing the "supposing" and the r e w a r d i n g , the structural

p r o p e r t i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n are s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a b l e so t h a t we can t r e a t them as i n -

dependent o f the p a r t i c u l a r persons i n the r o l e s e t . For such p r o p e r t i e s as s i z e ,

number o f e c h e l o n s , and r a t e of growth, the j u s t i f i a b l e a b s t r a c t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

. p r o p e r t i e s from i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r i s even more o b v i o u s .

The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c i r c l e (A) i n F i g u r e 2, t h e n , r e p r e s e n t s a set o f v a r i a b l e s .

Some o f them c h a r a c t e r i z e the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole, e.g., i t s s i z e , number o f

r a n k or s t a t u s l e v e l s , the p r o d u c t s i t produces, or i t s f i n a n c i a l base. Other

v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s s e t are e c o l o g i c a l , i n t h a t they r e p r e s e n t the r e l a t i o n of a c e r t a i n

p o s i t i o n o r person t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , e.g., h i s r a n k , h i s r e p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r cer-

t a i n services i n the d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r , or the number and p o s i t i o n s o f o t h e r s who are

directly concerned w i t h h i s performance.

I n s e r t Figure 2 about here

 Personality

Factors

/
/
/4

\
\

Role Senders F o c a l Person

Organizational Role Role

Factors E x p e c t a t i o n s Pressures Experience Response

II IV

Interpersonal

Relations

F i g u r e 2. A t h e o r e t i c a l model o f f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n a d j u s t m e n t t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y
 2-28

Arrow 3 asserts a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i o u s organizational variables

and t h e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and p r e s s u r e s w h i c h a r e h e l d about and e x e r t e d toward a

particular position. F o r example, a p e r s o n i n a l i a i s o n p o s i t i o n l i n k i n g two de-

partments i s l i k e l y t o be s u b j e c t e d t o many c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e pressures because h i s

r o l e s e t c o n s i s t s o f persons i n two s e p a r a t e u n i t s , each h a v i n g i t s own g o a l s , ob-

j e c t i v e s , and norms. I n general, the organizational conditions s u r r o u n d i n g and de-

f i n i n g t h e p o s i t i o n s o f ones r o l e senders w i l l determine i n p a r t t h e i r organizational

experience, t h e i r expectations, and t h e p r e s s u r e s they impose.

Personality factors. The term " p e r s o n a l i t y " i s used b r o a d l y to refer to a l l

t h o s e f a c t o r s t h a t d e s c r i b e a person's p r o p e n s i t i e s t o behave i n c e r t a i n ways, h i s '

m o t i v e s a n d v a l u e s , h i s s e n s i t i v i t i e s and f e a r s , h i s h a b i t s , and t h e l i k e . Such

f a c t o r s a f f e c t r o l e episodes i n s e v e r a l ways. F i r s t , some t r a i t s o f t h e p e r s o n tend

t o evoke o r f a c i l i t a t e c e r t a i n responses from h i s r o l e senders (Arrow 4) . For

example, a v o l a t i l e , a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y may e l i c i t s t r o n g pressures because only

s t r o n g p r e s s u r e s have a l a s t i n g e f f e c t on him, w h i l e a more r i g i d person may so suc-

c e s s f u l l y r e s i s t i n f l u e n c e t h a t many a s s o c i a t e s g i v e up t r y i n g t o i n f l u e n c e h i m .

Second, i t i s l i k e l y t h a t some persons w i l l e x p e r i e n c e r o l e pressures d i f f e r e n t l y

than others (Arrow 5 ) ; t h a t i s , p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s w i l l a c t as c o n d i t i o n i n g variables

i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e o b j e c t i v e and e x p e r i e n c e d s i t u a t i o n s . For example,

a h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e person may e x p e r i e n c e more e m o t i o n a l t e n s i o n under m i l d p r e s s u r e s

t h a n a more " t h i c k - s k i n n e d " person w i l l under i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e s . F i n a l l y , we a r e i n -

terested i n the extent t o which p e r s o n a l i t y p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s l e a d t o t h e use o f c e r t a i n

k i n d s o f c o p i n g responses. The i n t r a - p u n i t i v e p e r s o n , f o r example, may blame and h o l d

himself responsible when faced w i t h c o n f l i c t and f r u s t r a t i o n ; an a g g r e s s i v e , e x t r a -

p u n i t i v e p e r s o n would perhaps respond t o t h e same s i t u a t i o n w i t h o v e r a g g r e s s i o n

against o t h e r s whom he tends t o blame f o r h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s . Preferences f o r c e r t a i n

s t y l e s o f c o p i n g w i t h t e n s i o n and a n x i e t y a l s o tend t o be r o o t e d i n p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e .
 2-29

I n sum, p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s a r e seen as i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s o f b o t h d i f f e r -

e n t i a l e l i c i t a t i o n s o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s and d i f f e r e n t i a l r e a c t i o n s t o r o l e pressures.

The involvement o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . We w i l l use t h e term " i n t e r p e r s o n a l

r e l a t i o n s " t o r e f e r t o t h e more o r l e s s s t a b l e p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n between a per-

son and h i s r o l e senders and t o t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n s toward each o t h e r . These p a t t e r n s

of r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a l o n g s e v e r a l dimensions, some o f them stemming

f r o m t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , o t h e r s from i n f o r m a l i n t e r a c t i o n and

the s h a r i n g o f common e x p e r i e n c e s . The f o l l o w i n g dimensions a r e seen as p a r t i c u l a r l y

important i n the present context: 1) power o r a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e , 2) a f f e c t i v e bonds,

such as r e s p e c t , t r u s t i n t h e c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s and benevolence o f t h e o t h e r , and a t -

t r a c t i o n o r l i k i n g , t h e bonds o f f r i e n d s h i p , 3) dependence o f one on t h e o t h e r , and

4) t h e s t y l e o f communication between t h e f o c a l person and h i s a s s o c i a t e s .

As F i g u r e . 2 i n d i c a t e s , i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s f u l f i l l some f u n c t i o n s p a r a l l e l

to those d e s c r i b e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The k i n d o f pressures

e x e r t e d b y r o l e senders upon t h e f o c a l person depends t o some degree upon t h e n a t u r e

of r e l a t i o n s between them (Arrow 6) . Role senders who a r e s u p e r i o r i n t h e f o r m a l

h i e r a r c h y w i l l p r e s e n t t h e i r demands i n a d i f f e r e n t manner t h a n s u b o r d i n a t e s o r p e e r s .

In l i k e manner, p r e s s u r e s w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y depending on t h e a f f e c t i v e

bonds between f o c a l person and r o l e senders (Arrow 7 ) . F o r example, p r e s s u r e s from

t r u s t e d a s s o c i a t e s may arouse l e s s t e n s i o n t h a n s i m i l a r p r e s s u r e s f r o m o t h e r s . Also,

the n a t u r e o f a person's b e h a v i o r a l r e a c t i o n s t o a g i v e n e x p e r i e n c e may be a f f e c t e d

by i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . For example, some k i n d s o f c o p i n g

responses ( l i k e o v e r t a g g r e s s i o n ) may be v i r t u a l l y r u l e d o u t when t h e p r e s s u r e s are

exerted by a h i e r a r c h i c a l superior. On t h e o t h e r hand, s t r o n g bonds o f t r u s t and

r e s p e c t may encourage a response o f shared p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g .

C o p i n g responses and "feedback" c y c l e s . There a r e s e v e r a l ways i n w h i c h r e a c t i o n s

t o c o n f l i c t s may produce changes i n o t h e r s e t s o f v a r i a b l e s i n F i g u r e 2 S As noted

above, t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a f o c a l person complies w i t h h i s r o l e senders' demands i s

 2-30

one example o f h i s b e h a v i o r t h a t w i l l d i r e c t l y a f f e c t f u t u r e r o l e sending b e h a v i o r

(Arrow 2 ) , When h e . i s seen as r e s i s t i n g i n f l u e n c e , t h e p r e s s u r e s upon him may be

temporarily i n c r e a s e d ; when he i s seen as unable o r u n w i l l i n g t o comply w i t h t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i s j o b , a whole new s e t o f p r e s s u r e s may be b r o u g h t t o bear. Another

k i n d o f feedback occurs when t h e f o c a l person a t t e m p t s t o i n i t i a t e communication w i t h

h i s r o l e senders about t h e problems he e n c o u n t e r s i n t h e performance o f h i s j o b ; such

feedback may l e a d t o immediate m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e demands t h a t a r e made o f him, t o

changes i n i n f o r m a l collaborative arrangements, o r even t o a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e f o r m a l

d i v i s i o n o f labor.

Two o t h e r feedback c y c l e s a f f e c t t h e t o t a l process o f r o l e s e n d i n g — o n e t h r o u g h

the e f f e c t s o f t h e f o c a l person's responses upon h i s own p e r s o n a l i t y , and one t h r o u g h

t h e e f f e c t s o f h i s responses upon h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h each o f h i s r o l e senders. For

example, Immediate changes i n t h e f o c a l person's f e e l i n g s and b e h a v i o r toward h i s

r o l e senders (Arrow 9 ) , such as a l o s s o f t r u s t o r r e s p e c t , a r e l i k e l y i n the long

r u n t o c r e a t e s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n t h e e n d u r i n g p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s between them.

Such a change i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations w i l l i n turn affect future role sender

b e h a v i o r (Arrow 6) as w e l l as t h e f o c a l person's response t o i t (Arrow 7 ) . Three

k i n d s o f r e a c t i o n s seem t o us o f p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s process. First,

t e n s i o n s and f r u s t r a t i o n s o f t h e f o c a l person may arouse i n h i m h o s t i l e feelings,

w h i c h i n t u r n g i v e r i s e t o a g g r e s s i v e a c t i o n s and communications t o h i s r o l e senders.

These a c t i o n s may r e s u l t i n a decrease i n p r e s s u r e s ; j u s t as o f t e n , depending on c i r -

cumstances and p e r s o n a l i t i e s , a g g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s i n s t r o n g e r and more r e s t r i c t i v e

demands b y r o l e senders. Second, t h e f o c a l p e r s o n may a t t e m p t t o r e j e c t o r a v o i d

t h o s e r o l e senders whose demands he has d i f f i c u l t y i n m e e t i n g . As w i t h hostility,

h i s r e j e c t i o n and w i t h d r a w a l may o r may n o t reduce h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s , depending on

|

how h i s r o l e senders respond i n r e t u r n . F i n a l l y , response o f t h e f o c a l person t o a

s i t u a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t may be t o approach h i s r o l e senders, i n c r e a s i n g the e f f e c t i v e -

ness o f communication w i t h them and perhaps t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f j o i n t problem solving.

 2-31

I f t h i s i n c r e a s e s t h e amount o f s u p p o r t i v e b e h a v i o r by a s s o c i a t e s , i t may l e a d t o a

r e d u c t i o n i n t e n s i o n s o f t h e f o c a l person, even i n cases where pressures c o n t i n u e t o

be s t r o n g .

C e r t a i n r e a c t i o n s t o r o l e experiences a l s o may lead t o m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n t h e per-

s o n a l i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n (Arrow 8) o f the f o c a l p e r s o n . Such changes are r e l e v a n t t o

our r e s e a r c h f o r two reasons. F i r s t , they may be symptomatic o f good o r bad mental

h e a l t h , a f f e c t i n g h i s a b i l i t y t o c a r r y on a l l t h e normal f u n c t i o n s o f l i v i n g . Second,

such changes may have s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s upon h i s performance i n t h e work s i t u a t i o n , i n -

c l u d i n g h i s a b i l i t y t o handle pressures and t e n s i o n . L e t us imagine, f o r example, a

person whose c o n t i n u a l i n a b i l i t y t o meet t h e demands o f h i s environment t h r e a t e n s h i s

self-esteem. I n a t t e m p t i n g t o cope w i t h t h e a n x i e t y aroused by t h i s t h r e a t he may be

f o r c e d t o r e l y more and more on t h e use o f defense mechanisms t h a t d i s t o r t t h e r e a l i t i e s

o f h i s s i t u a t i o n , so t h a t h i s b e h a v i o r becomes l e s s and l e s s a d a p t i v e (Arrow 5).. Other,

k i n d s o f changes i n t h e p e r s o n , such as changes i n h i s l e v e l , o f a s p i r a t i o n o r t h e

development o f symptoms o f i l l h e a l t h , may a f f e c t h i s a s s o c i a t e s ' b e h a v i o r toward

him d i r e c t l y (Arrow 4 ) , c r e a t i n g a change i n t h e r o l e p r e s s u r e .

B o t h a d j u s t i v e and m a l a d j u s t i v e c y c l e s a r e comprehended by t h i s framework. That

i s , we have c o n s i d e r e d c y c l e s i n which responses t o r o l e experiences i n c r e a s e t h e

l i k e l i h o o d o f f u t u r e e x p e r i e n c e s which a r e b a s i c a l l y p l e a s a n t and g r a t i f y i n g o r b a s i c a l l y

u n p l e a s a n t and f r u s t r a t i n g . The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e panels o f v a r i a b l e s and

the m a j o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among them has been b r i e f , and w i l l be developed as r e s e a r c h

f i n d i n g s are presented. T h i s model i s p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v i d e a s o r t of c o g n i t i v e map,

a way o f t h i n k i n g about a l a r g e s e t o f f a c t o r s and c o n d i t i o n s i n complex i n t e r a c t i o n .

The model becomes a t h e o r y when t h e s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s i n each p a n e l are d e l i n e a t e d

and t h e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n s among them are s p e c i f i e d .

r,
.v-, • Research Design and Measurement

The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n developed t o s t u d y problems o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y

stems d i r e c t l y from t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model summarized i n F i g u r e 2.

 2-32

A m a j o r i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t model i s t h a t t h e p e r c e p t i o n s and b e h a v i o r o f r o l e senders

should be measured independent o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s and b e h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l person

toward whom they a r e o r i e n t e d . We cannot be c o n t e n t t o measure t h e b e h a v i o r o f r o l e

senders i n terms o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , s i n c e we a r e committed t o the

h y p o t h e s i s t h a t h i s p e r c e p t i o n s a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e s t a t e o f h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l rela-

tions with r o l e senders and by aspects o f h i s own p e r s o n a l i t y . Indeed, we expect that

some o f h i s major defenses" a g a i n s t a d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n w i l l involve perceptual dis-

tortion.

Moreover, we a r e committed t o t r e a t i n g r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s n o t as a homogeneous

body o f c o n t e n t encountered by t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , b u t as c o n s i s t i n g o f d i s c r e t e and

v a r i e d p e r c e p t i o n s and b e h a v i o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l r o l e senders. For a l l these reasons,

a major r e q u i r e m e n t o f design was t h a t r o l e s e t s s h o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d , and t h a t data

s h o u l d be s e p a r a t e l y c o l l e c t e d from t h e f o c a l person and each member o f h i s r o l e s e t .

These r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t u r n have an i m p l i c a t i o n f o r d e s i g n : they i m p l y an i n t e n s i v e

rather t h a n a b r o a d l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e s i g n , s i n c e t h e c o s t s and l o g i s t i c problems

i n l o c a t i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g r o l e senders f o r a n a t i o n a l sample o f f o c a l persons

w o u l d be a s t r o n o m i c a l , a t l e a s t i n terms o f t h e l i m i t e d astronomy o f contemporary

social research.

O t h e r aspects o f o u r t h e o r e t i c a l approach, however, urge a representative,

large-sample design. We v a l u e t h e c o n f i d e n c e w i t h w h i c h such a d e s i g n p e r m i t s gen-

e r a l i z a t i o n , and we a r e s k e p t i c a l about t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f social-psychological

generalizations from s m a l l , u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples. Moreover, o u r model emphasizes

the i m p o r t a n c e o f surrounding c o n d i t i o n s i n understanding the e f f e c t s o f r o l e conflict

and a m b i g u i t y on t h e f o c a l p e r s o n . These c o n d i t i o n s i n h e r e i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n

the p e r s o n a l i t y of the individuals involved, and i n t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations of

the f o c a l p e r s o n and members o f t h e r o l e s e t . To some e x t e n t t h e e f f e c t s o f such

f a c t o r s c a n be a n t i c i p a t e d , and t h e necessary measurements f o r e s t i m a t i n g them can

be b u i l t i n t o an i n t e n s i v e design. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t such f a c t o r s cannot be f o r e -

 2-33

seen and measured, however, t h e y c o n s t i t u t e a n o t h e r argument i n favor o f the large

p r o b a b i l i t y sample, i n w h i c h t h e y t o o are r e p r e s e n t e d .

W i t h t h e s e . d i s p a r a t e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n m i n d , we developed a p a i r e d r e s e a r c h design

f o r t h e s t u d y o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y , a d e s i g n i n v o l v i n g an i n t e n s i v e s t u d y o f

f o c a l p e r s o n s and r o l e senders, and a n a t i o n a l s u r v e y i n w h i c h each respondent was

t r e a t e d as a f o c a l person. I n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , a l l t h e seven panels o f v a r i a b l e s

s t i p u l a t e d i n F i g u r e 2 were measured, and d a t a were o b t a i n e d s e p a r a t e l y f r o m each

f o c a l p e r s o n and each r o l e sender. Moreover, d a t a about t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which

t h e y were l o c a t e d were i n d e p e n d e n t l y o b t a i n e d from o f f i c i a l r e c p r d s and o t h e r sources.

T h i s s t u d y was f o l l o w e d b y , and matched t o , a n a t i o n a l survey i n w h i c h t h e major

measures o f t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y were r e p e a t e d and t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e i n t e n s i v e

s t u d y r e p l i c a t e d , e x c e p t t h a t each respondent served as t h e d a t a source f o r h i m s e l f

as f o c a l p e r s o n and as i n f o r m a n t about t h e b e h a v i o r o f h i s r o l e senders and t h e

characteristics of his organization.

Design o f t h e I n t e n s i v e Study

The b a s i c commitment f o r t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y was t o produce a d e s i g n i n which,

f o r a l i m i t e d number o f ( f o c a l ) p o s i t i o n s , we c o u l d determine t h e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

h e l d by a l l r e l e v a n t r o l e senders. These'data, i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e responses o f

t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n s , would p e r m i t us t o d e f i n e and measure r o l e con-

f l i c t i n terms o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n s among e x p e c t a t i o n s ( s e n t r o l e ) independent o f i t s

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e mind o f t h e o f f i c e occupant.

G i v e n t h i s d e c i s i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g problems remained t o be f a c e d :

(1) S e l e c t i o n o f t h e o f f i c e s t o be s t u d i e d ( f o c a l o f f i c e s ) , and t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h i c h c o n t a i n e d them.

(2) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s e t o f r o l e senders f o r t h e occupant o f a

particular office.

(3) C o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a from r o l e senders and o f f i c e occupants so as t o

p e r m i t comparisons among t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l r o l e senders; and

 2-34

between sent and r e c e i v e d r o l e expectations.

(4) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the h y p o t h e t i c a l e f f e c t s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and

ambiguity t o be studied.

S e l e c t i o n o f f o c a l offices„ We made an i n i t i a l d e c i s i o n t o l i m i t the number of

f o c a l o f f i c e s t o about f i f t y . T h i s number r e p r e s e n t e d a compromise between a s p i r a t i o n s

and r e s o u r c e s , and was l a r g e enough t o p e r m i t s t a t i s t i c a l analyses and t o a l l o w some

p u r p o s i v e d i v e r s i t y i n the s e l e c t i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s and o f f i c e s . We decided to

restrict t h e i n t e n s i v e study t o business and i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and t o attempt

to l o c a t e the r e s e a r c h i n s e v e r a l companies o f d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t technology. We

a l s o chose companies i n somewhat d i f f e r e n t c o m p e t i t i v e situations i n their respective

industries. I n a l l , we s e l e c t e d and were g i v e n access t o seven i n d u s t r i a l locations

in the o i l , a u t o m o b i l e , e l e c t r o n i c s and machine p a r t s i n d u s t r i e s ?1

These l o c a t i o n s

d i f f e r e d considerably i n the types o f o p e r a t i o n s i n w h i c h they engaged. Three com-

panies i n t h e o i l i n d u s t r y were engaged i n o i l - w i n n i n g and m a r k e t i n g on a world-wide

s c a l e ; t h e automotive l o c a t i o n s c o n s i s t e d o f two p l a n t s engaged i n t h e h i g h l y auto-

mated mass p r o d u c t i o n o f e n g i n e s ; the e l e c t r o n i c s f i e l d was chosen p r i m a r i l y to include

r e s e a r c h and development a c t i v i t i e s . This d i v e r s i t y of operations could not, of course,

provide representativeness; i t d i d provide an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l e c t a s e t o f w i d e l y

varying f o c a l positions.

I n e a c h l o c a t i o n , we s e l e c t e d a number o f o f f i c e s f o r s t u d y from the t a b l e o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a f t e r some c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n the company. A g a i n , our major c r i t e r i o n

in t h i s c h o i c e was diversity. We wanted t o i n c l u d e o f f i c e s from v i r t u a l l y the full

range o f t h e h i e r a r c h y - c o r p o r a t e o f f i c e r s to production foremen. (We excluded non-

supervisory employees because t h e i r l a c k o f s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e senders makes t h e i r

s i t u a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m - a l l r a n k s o f s u p e r v i s i o n and management.)

At each e c h e l o n , we a t t e m p t e d t o s e l e c t a w i d e range o f p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to

Only p r e - t e s t i n t e r v i e w s were conducted i n t h e machine p a r t s m a n u f a c t u r i n g concern.

 2-35

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n — s t a f f and l i n e , p r o f e s s i o n a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , o f f i c e

and factory. I n s o f a r as any i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e t o us, we t r i e d to include

p o s i t i o n s which r e p u t e d l y d i f f e r e d i n the degree o f r o l e c o n f l i c t ; we d i d n o t want

t o p e r m i t o u r s e l v e s t o be l e d o n l y beside q u i e t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l w a t e r s . I n cases

where a number o f i n d i v i d u a l s occupied v e r y s i m i l a r o f f i c e s i n the t a b l e o f o r g a n i z a -

t i o n ( e . g . , " p r o d u c t i o n foremen"), a random s e l e c t i o n was made among them. To avoid

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o v e r l a p among r o l e senders, f o c a l o f f i c e s i n the same o r g a n i z a t i o n

were g e n e r a l l y s e l e c t e d from d i f f e r e n t departments.

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the 53 o f f i c e s thus s e l e c t e d , t h e r e a f t e r dubbed f o c a l

o f f i c e s , a r e summarized i n Table 1. A l l the f o c a l o f f i c e occupants were male. Their

ages r a n g e d from 25 t o 59 y e a r s , w i t h modal age i n l a t e thirties.

I n s e r t Table 1 about h e r e

The method o f c o n t a c t i n g t h e f o c a l o f f i c e occupants and r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s s i o n f o r con-

d u c t i n g i n t e r v i e w s d i f f e r e d from l o c a t i o n t o l o c a t i o n . G e n e r a l l y we asked t o be i n -

t r o d u c e d i n t o each department by the p e r s o n n e l manager,, and then t o be l e f t t o present

our own case. To the b e s t o f our knowledge t h e r e were no r e f u s a l s t o p a r t i c i p a t e .

F o l l o w i n g t h i s i n i t i a l c o n t a c t , an i n t e r v i e w w i t h the f o c a l person was arranged. At

t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each i n t e r v i e w t h e purposes o f the s t u d y were a g a i n e x p l a i n e d and

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s consent o b t a i n e d b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g w i t h the i n t e r v i e w .

S e l e c t i o n o f r o l e senders. I n t h e o r y the p o p u l a t i o n o f r o l e senders f o r a g i v e n

focal o f f i c e i s readily defined: t h e y i n c l u d e a l l persons whose e x p e c t a t i o n s are

r e l e v a n t t o the performance o f t h e f o c a l r o l e . I d e a l l y , we would l i k e t o p i c k up the

o r g a n i z a t i o n by the f o c a l o f f i c e i n w h i c h we are i n t e r e s t e d and see t o what o t h e r o f -

f i c e s i t i s connected, as we m i g h t p i c k up a f i s h n e t by one knot and d i s c o v e r t o

what o t h e r s i t i s t i e d .

I n p r a c t i c e the problem i n i d e n t i f y i n g r o l e senders was t o determine t h a t set

o f p e r s o n s whose b e h a v i o r was l i k e l y t o have major i n f l u e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g the

 2-36

Table 2-1

Summary t o F o c a l O f f i c e Characteristics

Type o f I n d u s t r y Operations Approximate l e v e l i n t h e

organizational hierarchy

Oil Headquarters 4 D i v i s i o n managers

15 Department managers

5 S e c t i o n managers

Automobile Manufacturing 1 Department manager

6 Superintendents

15 Foremen

Electronics Research & 1 Department manager

development
5 S e c t i o n managers

1 Foreman

TOTAL 53

1
 2-37

c o n t e n t o f each f o c a l r o l e and t o do so w i t h o u t i n t e r v i e w i n g e v e r y p e r s o n i n t h e o r -

ganization. Our approach was t o b e g i n w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r a l f a c t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , and

t o l o o k f o r r o l e senders i n p o s i t i o n s d e f i n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e and t h e work-

flow s t r u c t u r e , o r d i v i s i o n o f labor. These we t h o u g h t would l e a d us t o persons who

had b o t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y and t h e power t o be i n f l u e n t i a l . Thus immediate s u p e r v i s o r s

were always s e l e c t e d , on t h e b a s i s o f o u r a p r i o r i judgment t h a t t h e y were l i k e l y t o

be i m p o r t a n t r o l e senders. S i m i l a r l y we always s e l e c t e d d i r e c t s u b o r d i n a t e s ( o r a

random sample o f them i f they.were numerous), s i n c e t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l interdependence

w i t h t h e f o c a l p e r s o n was l i k e l y t o make them b o t h concerned w i t h h i s performance and

i n f l u e n t i a l I n i t . Other s u p e r i o r s , such as t h e s u p e r v i s o r ' s own s u p e r i o r , were

r o u t i n e l y s e l e c t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e f o c a l person was asked about t h e amount o f d i r e c t

c o n t a c t w i t h superiors-once-removed and whether he c o n s i d e r e d them i m p o r t a n t i n de-

t e r m i n i n g how he performed h i s j o b . Peers o f t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a n k as t h e

f o c a l p e r s o n were s e l e c t e d i f they were a d j a c e n t t o h i m i n t h e w o r k - f l o w s t r u c t u r e o r

i f d i r e c t c o n t a c t e x i s t e d and the f o c a l p e r s o n c o n s i d e r e d them i n f l u e n t i a l ; similar

c r i t e r i a were used f o r s e l e c t i n g o t h e r r o l e senders i n more d i s t a n t , p a r t s o f t h e o r -

ganization. Role senders who were co-workers i n and o u t s i d e t h e department o f t h e

f o c a l p e r s o n were a l i k e i n t h a t they d i d n o t s t a n d i n any f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n -

s h i p t o t h e f o c a l p e r s o n ; i n s t e a d they tended t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e f o c a l o f f i c e i n

terms o f t h e w o r k f l o w system. Occasionally a f o c a l person, i n h i s i n i t i a l interview,

w o u l d d e s c r i b e a person i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h whom he had no f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ,

but whom he regarded w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e s p e c t o r w i t h whom he was e s p e c i a l l y friendly.

When we r e c e i v e d i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t such persons were a c t i n g f u n c t i o n a l l y as r o l e

s e n d e r s , c o n s u l t i n g and a d v i s i n g o r merely c o m m i s e r a t i n g w i t h t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , we

s e l e c t e d them as r o l e senders.

A f o c a l person and h i s r o l e senders we have r e f e r r e d t o as a r o l e s e t , o r c l u s t e r .

F i g u r e 3 d e p i c t s the c o m p o s i t i o n o f such a c l u s t e r i n a space d e f i n e d by a v e r t i c a l

 2-38

dimension r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s h i e r a r c h y and w i t h t h e space between boxes

providing some a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o o u r concept o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l distance. Distance, i n

our terms, i s d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e number o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t boundaries

between t w o o f f i c e s . Thus t h e d i s t a n c e between t h e F o c a l O f f i c e i n our i l l u s t r a t i o n

and t h e Co-worker (who by d e f i n i t i o n belongs t o t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t ) i s less

t h a n t h a t between the F o c a l O f f i c e and any o f f i c e s o u t s i d e t h e u n i t (extra-depart-

mental r o l e senders). Another way o f c o n c e i v i n g d i s t a n c e i s i n terms o f t h e number

of levels one has t o go up t h e h i e r a r c h y b e f o r e two o f f i c e s a r e l i n k e d by a common

superior.

I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here

The number o f r o l e senders s e l e c t e d f o r a s i n g l e f o c a l p o s i t i o n was l i m i t e d t o

t e n , f o r reasons o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e convenience. F o r f o c a l persons whose l i s t s o f pos-

s i b l e r o l e senders exceeded t e n , t h i s l i m i t a t i o n r e q u i r e d s e l e c t i o n o f a few r a t h e r

than a l l h i s subordinates. Such s e l e c t i o n was done randomly. For a few f o c a l persons

with exceptionally long l i s t s o f r o l e senders, we f i r s t excluded senders whose f r e -

quency o f i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o c a l person was v e r y low, and t h e n proceeded as u s u a l .

A t o t a l o f 381 r o l e senders were f i n a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d , c o n s t i t u t i n g an average o f about

seven r o l e senders f o r each f o c a l person i n o u r 53 c l u s t e r s .

Method o f r o l e a n a l y s i s . A m a j o r g o a l o f o u r d e s i g n was t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e draw-

i n g o f c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y o f each f o c a l p o s i t i o n from the

t o t a l s e t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by t h e r o l e senders f o r t h a t p o s i t i o n . To accomplish

t h i s , we needed t o assure o u r s e l v e s i n advance t h a t d a t a e l i c i t e d f r o m d i f f e r e n t mem-

b e r s o f a c l u s t e r c o u l d be m e a n i n g f u l l y compared. I n a d d i t i o n we f a c e d t h e problem

o f c o l l e c t i n g d a t a so as t o make q u a n t i t a t i v e comparison between c l u s t e r s possible,

a r e q u i r e m e n t w h i c h r u l e d o u t a s t r i c t case s t u d y approach. The method i d e a l l y

s u i t e d t o o u r purposes r e q u i r e d advance s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f a number o f dimensions o f

r o l e b e h a v i o r , such t h a t a r o l e sender c o u l d s i m p l y i n d i c a t e "where'* on t h e dimension

 2-39

Superior
once removed

Supervisor

Peer ^1 Focal o f f i c e K Peer

Co-worker Co-worker
Friend Extra-
adviser departmental
r o l e sender

S u b o r d i n a t e s

I n f l u e n c e bonds

Boundary o f work u n i t

F i g u r e 3. Composition o f a Role Set

 2-40

he would p r e f e r t h e f o c a l person t o be. A t t h e same time the dimensions t o be used

would have t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o a wide v a r i e t y o f r o l e s . Thus we were l e d ( 1 ) t o

r e s t r i c t dimensions f o r a n a l y z i n g r o l e b e h a v i o r t o those commonly used and e a s i l y

u n d e r s t o o d by t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , and ( 2 ) t o d e v i s e ways o f i n t r o d u c i n g i n t o the

i n t e r v i e w s r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e a c t u a l c o n t e n t o f a s p e c i f i c f o c a l r o l e , such t h a t r o l e

senders c o u l d d e f i n e t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c t u a l r a t h e r than a b s t r a c t

dimensions.

The most adaptable u n i t o f a n a l y s i s seemed t o be t h e molar a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h the

f o c a l p e r s o n had t o p e r f o r m t o meet the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f r o l e senders and f u l f i l l t h e

requirements o f o f f i c e . F o r example, t h e o f f i c e o f "foreman on assembly l i n e B,

p l a n t X" e n t a i l e d f o r i t s occupant a s t a b l e and f i n i t e s e t o f a c t i v i t i e s i n w h i c h he

engaged w i t h some r e g u l a r i t y ; these a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d e d •'assigning men t o p o s i t i o n s

on t h e l i n e , " "seeing t h a t .each man completed h i s task a t t h e p r o p e r speed,"

"teaching new men how t o do t h e j o b , " and " t r o u b l e - s h o o t i n g when member o f t h e group

was i n d i f f i c u l t y . " The draw-back t o d e s c r i b i n g a r o l e i n terms o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s

i s t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f c h o o s i n g t h e o p t i m a l s i z e o f an " a c t i v i t y . " I f one chooses a

v e r y f i n e u n i t o f d e s c r i p t i o n t h e l i s t becomes v e r y l o n g , i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n becomes

obscure and the a n a l y s i s f o r w h i c h i t i s to.be used becomes more c o m p l i c a t e d . In

c h o o s i n g a r a t h e r gross u n i t , however, one may g l o s s over many o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l

d e t a i l s a b o u t w h i c h r o l e senders d i f f e r and around w h i c h a r e generated t h e problems

o f c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y we w i s h t o s t u d y . I n addition t o t h i s considerable diffi-

c u l t y , d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f r o l e s seem t o r e q u i r e u n i t s o f d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t u a l s i z e

for meaningful description. F o r example, t h e work o f assembly l i n e foreman i s suf-

f i c i e n t l y r o u t i n e and s p e c i f i e d so t h a t a r a t h e r d e t a i l e d b e h a v i o r a l description

can be o b t a i n e d , b u t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e work o f a major e x e c u t i v e i n u n i t s o f

equivalent s i z e becomes n e a r l y meaningless, because t h e n a t u r e o f h i s work tends to

be l e s s r o u t i n e and t h e n a t u r e o f h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s more g l o b a l . His a c t i v i t i e s

are more v a r i e d s i n c e t h e g o a l s he i s expected t o achieve can be reached by a

g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f means.
 2-41

The method we chose t o use, w h i l e t a k i n g account o f these d i f f i c u l t i e s , depended

h e a v i l y on t h e phenomenology o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , and d i d n o t w h o l l y r e s o l v e t h e

dilemna o f u n i t s i z e . A l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s was o b t a i n e d from each f o c a l person d u r i n g

an i n i t i a l personal interview. While t h e i n t e r v i e w e r encouraged t h e respondent t o

use as d e t a i l e d a d e s c r i p t i o n as p o s s i b l e , t h e c h o i c e o f a u n i t o f d e s c r i p t i o n was

l e f t t o t h e respondent. T h i s l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s , i n r e - a r r a n g e d o r d e r was subsequently

p r e s e n t e d t o a l l r o l e senders. Thus i t was p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n each r o l e sender's

e x p e c t a t i o n s about t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f the f o c a l p e r s o n . The v a r i a b l e s and indices

c o n s t r u c t e d out o f these d a t a w i l l be p r e s e n t e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g

chapters.

Two o t h e r aspects o f the f o c a l person's r o l e b e h a v i o r were s t u d i e d . The first

of these we may c a l l t h e s t y l e o f h i s r o l e performance. The term s t y l e r e f e r s to some

o u t s t a n d i n g t e n d e n c i e s i n t h e b e h a v i o r o f a f o c a l person i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r

a c t i v i t i e s i n which he i s engaged. Thus we may w i s h t o c h a r a c t e r i z e a person's be-

h a v i o r as h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d or r a t h e r a p a t h e t i c , r e s i s t a n t t o c o n t r o l o r e a s i l y i n -

f l u e n c e d , i m p u l s i v e o r d e l i b e r a t e , and so f o r t h . A l t h o u g h we are used t o t h i n k i n g o f

such b e h a v i o r tendencies as p r i m a r i l y d e t e r m i n e d by p e r s o n a l i t y p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s (hence

c o n s i s t e n t l y e v i d e n t across a l l r o l e s enacted by one p e r s o n ) , i t i s easy t o observe

t h a t p r e s c r i p t i o n s about " p r o p e r " s t y l e s o f b e h a v i o r are i n f a c t a p p l i e d t o b e h a v i o r

in a particular role. I n o t h e r words, r o l e senders d i f f e r e n t i a l l y sanction various

s t y l e s o f e n a c t i n g a r o l e , a l t h o u g h we don't know whether or n o t t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s w i t h

respect t o s t y l e are r o l e s p e c i f i c . Role senders were asked t o d e s c r i b e what s t y l e s

t h e y p r e f e r r e d t h e f o c a l person t o f o l l o w , u s i n g a 2 2 - a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t , and then

to c o n t r a s t t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s w i t h t h e a c t u a l b e h a v i o r o f the f o c a l person.

The t h i r d area o f e x p l o r a t i o n o f f o c a l r o l e s concerned n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r . By

t h i s we meant b e h a v i o r i n response t o aspects o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i f e w h i c h are n o t

r o l e - s p e c i f i c b u t are more g e n e r a l , perhaps o r g a n i z a t i o n - w i d e . The f a c t s of super-

v i s i o n , a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h o t h e r s , company p o l i c i e s , p r o m o t i o n s , and the l i k e typically

 2-42

i n v o l v e norms and b e h a v i o r i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h them. Role senders were p r e s e n t e d w i t h

a series o f p r e s c r i p t i v e statements l i k e : 11
(The f o c a l person) s h o u l d c a r r y o u t o r d e r s

even i f he t h i n k s they a r e unsound" and "(He) s h o u l d defend h i s co-workers f r o m

c r i t i c i s m by s u p e r i o r s . " They were asked t o respond t o each statement by i n d i c a t i n g

whether t h e y t h o u g h t t h e f o c a l o f f i c e occupant ought t o do ( o r a v o i d d o i n g ) what the

rule specified. Again we were concerned here w i t h d e t e c t i n g what b e h a v i o r was con-

s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the person i n t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n and what degree o f consensus

e x i s t e d on such p r e s c r i p t i o n s , b u t t h e s t a t e m e n t s were designed t o be a p p l i c a b l e to

a l l organizational positions.

To summarize, measuring r o l e s e n d e r s 1
e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the f o c a l

o f f i c e occupants r e q u i r e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t s o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s i n such

a manner t h a t comparison o f d a t a from d i f f e r e n t r o l e senders and about d i f f e r e n t f o c a l

r o l e s w o u l d be p o s s i b l e . Three elements o f r o l e performance were s e l e c t e d f o r study

i n t h i s way; (1) t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f the r o l e (2) the s t y l e o f f o c a l person's per-

formance and ( 3 ) the general o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms he m i g h t be expected t o adhere t o .

I t i s around these elements t h a t we sought t o measure c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y i n 53

focal roles.

M e a s u r i n g the e f f e c t s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . Our second major problem

concerned t h e s e l e c t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s descriptive o f t h e e f f e c t s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and

ambiguity. A l t h o u g h we were u l t i m a t e l y concerned w i t h e f f e c t s upon mental health,

the b r e a d t h o f problems i n c l u d e d under t h a t r u b r i c n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e d the c h o i c e

o f a few o u t o f many p o s s i b l e consequences f o r t h e person.

The v a r i a b l e s used t o d e s c r i b e t h e f o c a l person i n t h i s s t u d y f a l l i n t o two

groups. The f i r s t group d e s c r i b e s t h e a d j u s t m e n t of f o c a l person t o h i s work r o l e .

I n c l u d e d I n t h i s group are t h e amount o f t e n s i o n he e x p e r i e n c e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h

h i s work, t h e balance o f s a t i s f a c t i o n - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n he f e e l s about i t , and the

quality o f his interpersonal r e l a t i o n s on t h e j o b . A l l v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s group are

responses t o t h e j o b . The second group o f v a r i a b l e s d e s c r i b e s more g e n e r a l and

 2-43

presumably s t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p e r s o n , t h a t i s t o say b a s i c properties

of personality. These v a r i a b l e s can be t h o u g h t o f b o t h as f a c t o r s w h i c h c o n d i t i o n

a person's adjustment t o h i s r o l e and as response t e n d e n c i e s t h a t r e p r e s e n t h i s ad-

j u s t m e n t t o t h e sum t o t a l o f h i s l i f e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Part V (Chapters 10-13) deal

s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h t h e measurement and a n a l y s i s o f major p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , pri-

m a r i l y as f a c t o r s c o n d i t i o n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y

on t h e one hand, and t h e responses o f t h e f o c a l person on t h e o t h e r .

Data c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . The d a t a on each c l u s t e r were c o l l e c t e d i n t h e

f o l l o w i n g manner. F i r s t , t h e f o c a l person was i n t e r v i e w e d to obtain a l i s t of h i s

a c t i v i t i e s and t o determine h i s r o l e senders ( F o c a l I n t e r v i e w I ) 0 Next, each o f h i s

r o l e senders was i n t e r v i e w e d . When these i n t e r v i e w s had been completed, t h e f o c a l

person was i n t e r v i e w e d f o r a second time ( F o c a l I n t e r v i e w I I ) , p r i m a r i l y t o o b t a i n

h i s p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r o l e senders' b e h a v i o r and h i s responses t o t h e stresses o f

his role. F i n a l l y , each f o c a l person was asked t o complete a Person Description

Form ( P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y ) , w h i c h he then r e t u r n e d t o the research s t a f f a t h i s

convenience. I n a l l , t h e process o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n r e q u i r e d some 4 t o 6 hours o f

t i m e f r o m each f o c a l p e r s o n , and 1 o r 2 hours from each o f h i s r o l e senders.

I n t e r v i e w e r s were g i v e n s y s t e m a t i c p r a c t i c e w i t h t h e i n s t r u m e n t s they were t o

use. T h i s was p r o v i d e d i n p a r t by t h e p r e - t e s t s t u d y , b u t a day o f p r a c t i c e preceded

the s t a r t o f i n t e r v i e w i n g a t each l o c a t i o n . F o c a l i n t e r v i e w s were u s u a l l y t a k e n by

members o f t h e r e s e a r c h s t a f f , r o l e sender i n t e r v i e w s by members o f f i e l d staff of

t h e Survey Research Center. F o c a l i n t e r v i e w s were tape r e c o r d e d ; i n t e r v i e w s w i t h r o l e

senders w e r e r e c o r d e d v e r b a t i m by each i n t e r v i e w e r .

F o c a l I n t e r v i e w I . The f i r s t i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e f o c a l person had a d u a l p u r -

pose: ( 1 ) To i d e n t i f y r o l e senders and o b t a i n an a c t i v i t y l i s t , and (2) t o o b t a i n

an assessment o f h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h each o f h i s r o l e senders. We have already

d e s c r i b e d t h e procedure f o r i d e n t i f y i n g r o l e senders i n each c l u s t e r and f o r ob-

t a i n i n g a l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s from t h e f o c a l person. The purpose o f c o l l e c t i n g

 2-44

further information about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h r o l e senders was t o develop a f u l l

description of h i s received r o l e . We asked each f o c a l person why i n t e r a c t i o n between

him and each r o l e sender was necessary, what s o r t o f response each r o l e sender ex-

p e c t e d or pressed f o r from him, and how c l e a r l y t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n was communicated.

We asked how d i f f i c u l t t h e f o c a l person found i t t o comply w i t h such e x p e c t a t i o n s ,

how w e l l he f e l t he knew t h e r o l e sender's e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s performance, and whether

he had d i f f i c u l t i e s i n communicating w i t h any r o l e senders. This series of questions

was supplemented by a s e t o f r a t i n g s c a l e s on w h i c h the f o c a l p e r s o n r a t e d h i s f r e -

quency o f communication w i t h each r o l e sender, t h e amount o f i m p o r t a n c e he a t t r i b u t e d

t o him, how w e l l he l i k e d him, whether he r e s p e c t e d h i s knowledge o r a d v i c e , and how

much c o n f i d e n c e and t r u s t he c o u l d p l a c e i n t h e r o l e sender's c o - o p e r a t i o n . I n short,

]

in addition t o describing h i s r e c e i v e d r o l e f o r us, the f o c a l p e r s o n c o n t r i b u t e d a

good d e a l o f i n f o r m a t i o n on the q u a l i t y o f h i s i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations with role

senders.

The l a s t section of the f i r s t f o c a l i n t e r v i e w asked the f o c a l person f o r an over-

a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s r o l e i n terms o f c o n f l i c t , a m b i g u i t y and t e n s i o n . On a series

o f s i m p l e q u a n t i t a t i v e r a t i n g s c a l e s , he was asked t o e v a l u a t e t h e c l a r i t y o f h i s j o b

d e f i n i t i o n , his uncertainty about l i m i t s o f h i s own a u t h o r i t y and t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f

others, the incidence of contradictory o r c o n f l i c t i n g demands f r o m r o l e senders, and

t h e amount o f p r e s s u r e he f e l t f o r changing e i t h e r the q u a l i t y o r q u a n t i t y o f h i s

work. Our measure o f j o b - r e l a t e d t e n s i o n c o n s i s t e d o f 14 s t a t e m e n t s , d e s c r i b i n g what

we j u d g e d t o be symptoms o f c o n f l i c t or a m b i g u i t y on the j o b . These Items had been

developed and used i n a s i m i l a r way by o t h e r s t u d i e s conducted by t h e Survey Research

Center ( G u r i n , Veroff, and F e l d , I 9 6 0 ) . The i n t e r i v e w concluded w i t h a b r i e f i n q u i r y

about demographic characteristics of the respondent.

Role Sender I n t e r v i e w . B r o a d l y s p e a k i n g , t h e r o l e sender i n t e r v i e w was designed

t o measure t h e magnitude and d i r e c t i o n o f p r e s s u r e s t h a t each r o l e sender was trying

t o e x e r t upon the f o c a l person. I n doing so t h e i n t e r v i e w schedule covered the

 2-45

following areas a l l as p e r c e i v e d by t h e r o l e sender;

-description o f j o b d u t i e s and a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e f o c a l person

- r o l e sender's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e f o c a l person

-evaluation o f the a c t i v i t y l i s t p r o v i d e d during the F i r s t Focal I n t e r v i e w

-attempts t o i n f l u e n c e the f o c a l person

- n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r s t o w h i c h t h e f o c a l person s h o u l d adhere

- p r e f e r r e d s t y l e o f performance f o r t h e f o c a l person

-demographic and p e r s o n a l d a t a about t h e r o l e sender

I n v i e w o f t h e i r importance i n t h e subsequent a n a l y s i s , t h e procedures used to

measure r o l e senders' e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e f o c a l person m e r i t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n here

A typed l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s o f the f o c a l person, obtained i n t h e f i r s t Focal I n t e r v i e w

and a r r a n g e d i n random o r d e r , was p r e s e n t e d t o each r o l e sender. For each a c t i v i t y

on t h e l i s t , t h e r o l e sender was asked t o what e x t e n t i t concerned him i n t h e p e r -

formance o f h i s own j o b ( f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e ) . F o r those a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h a f -

f e c t e d h i s own j o b , he was t h e n asked whether o r n o t he wanted t h e f o c a l person t o

p e r f o r m t h i s a c t i v i t y i n any way d i f f e r e n t l y . I f t h e r o l e sender i n d i c a t e d t h a t he

d e s i r e d a change i n performance o f t h e f o c a l r o l e , he was asked t o d e s c r i b e what

changes h e wanted and what a t t e m p t he had made t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o c a l person i n t h i s

direction. A f t e r a l l t h e a c t i v i t i e s on t h e l i s t had been canvassed i n t h i s manner,

the r o l e sender was a l s o g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o add t o o r s u b t r a c t from t h e c o n t e n t

o f t h e list© F i n a l l y he was asked t o i n d i c a t e h i s d e s i r e s about a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e

f o c a l p e r s o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o two s p e c i f i c dimensions: ( 1 ) t h e way he a l l o c a t e d h i s

t i m e among a c t i v i t i e s and ( 2 ) t h e rank o r d e r i n g o f a c t i v i t i e s i n terms o f t h e i r

importance.

The approach t o r o l e senders i n q u i r e d intensively into their dissatisfactions

w i t h t h e p r e s e n t performance o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n as i t appeared t o them. I n con-

c e p t u a l terms we were i n t e r e s t e d i n pressures on t h e person t o change h i s performance

m e a s u r i n g these p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f sender d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n v o l v e s , t h e assumption

 .2-46

t h a t a r o l e sender's d e s i r e s f o r change a r e somehow t r a n s l a t e d i n t o influence attempts,

s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s upon t h e f o c a l person. T h i s assumption was b o l s t e r e d by q u a l i t a t i v e

d a t a f r o m r o l e senders about t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o implement d e s i r e d changes i n t h e be-

havior o f the f o c a l person. Moreover, t h e assumption t h a t d e s i r e s f o r change would

g e n e r a t e p r e s s u r e s f o r change i s a c o n s e r v a t i v e one w i t h r e s p e c t t o our major hy-

potheses. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t r o l e senders g i v e no e x p r e s s i o n t o t h e i r wishes f o r t h e

f o c a l p e r s o n , or r e s t r i c t t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h o s e wishes t o o t h e r people than t h e i r

l o g i c a l t a r g e t , the relationships we expect between t h e b e h a v i o r o f r o l e senders and

the responses o f t h e f o c a l person a r e reduced.

The measurement o f p r e s s u r e s upon t h e f o c a l person t o change h i s s t y l e o f per-

formance was done s i m i l a r l y t o t h e measurement o f p r e s s u r e t o change t h e c o n t e n t or

priority of activities. The b a s i c i n s t r u m e n t used f o r a s s e s s i n g p r e s s u r e t o change

s t y l e was a l i s t o f 22 a d j e c t i v e s . Role senders were asked t o d e s c r i b e t h e degree t o

w h i c h t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t h a t each a t t r i b u t e named was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e i d e a l oc-

cupant o f t h e f o c a l o f f i c e . Next, u s i n g t h e same l i s t , t h e i n d i c a t e d t h e degree to

w h i c h each a t t r i b u t e d e s c r i b e d t h e a c t u a l occupant o f t h e o f f i c e . Discrepancies

between t h e I d e a l and t h e a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n were taken t o be a measure o f t h e sent

p r e s s u r e upon t h e f o c a l person t o conform t o t h e i d e a l .

The f i n a l area o f r o l e a n a l y s i s — c o n c e r n e d w i t h norms r e g a r d i n g organizational

b e h a v i o r - - c o n s i s t e d o f a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d measure o f how s t r o n g l y each r o l e sender

wanted t h e f o c a l person t o adhere t o each o f a s e r i e s o f r u l e s o f behavior t h e i n t e r -

v i e w e r p r e s e n t e d t o him. The t o t a l l i s t was d i v i d e d i n t o two s u b s e c t i o n s , one con-

cerned w i t h , r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o supervisory behavior, the other containing rules

t h a t were a p p l i c a b l e to a l l roles.

Focal Interview I I . The second f o c a l i n t e r v i e w was designed t o cover f o u r areas

r e g a r d i n g t h e a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e f o c a l person t o h i s r o l e and h i s response t o r o l e

pressures.

(1) Sources o f s a t i s f a c t i o n o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e j o b . The i n t e n t of

t h i s s e c t i o n was t o d i s c o v e r what dimensions t h e f o c a l person used i n evaluating

 2-47

h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h h i s work, what t h e balance o f s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s -

s a t i s f a c t i o n was, and what changes ( i f any) he would l i k e t o b r i n g about i n

his job.

( 2 ) A s p i r a t i o n s and c a r e e r plans„ T h i s s e c t i o n concerned h i s past and

p r e s e n t a s p i r a t i o n s f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and achievement, h i s f e e l i n g s of

accomplishment o r f r u s t r a t i o n , and h i s hopes f o r t h e f u t u r e .

(3) Perception of person-role f i t . By a s k i n g the f o c a l person t o des-

c r i b e the q u a l i t i e s t h a t seemed t o be r e q u i r e d f o r s u c c e s s f u l performance i n

h i s p r e s e n t j o b , and t o i n d i c a t e the degree t o which he possessed o r l a c k e d

the r e q u i s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , we hoped t o l o c a t e him on a dimension o f "fit"

between p e r s o n a l i t y and role.

( 4 ) P e r c e i v e d s t r e s s and the use o f c o p i n g t e c h n i q u e s . Each f o c a l person

was asked t o e v a l u a t e t h e amount o f s t r e s s t o w h i c h he was subjected i n h i s r o l e ,

t o d i s c u s s the causes o f such s t r e s s , and t o d e s c r i b e some r e c e n t s t r e s s f u l

episodes. Our i n t e n t was t o d i s c o v e r t h e degree of d i s t r e s s he s u f f e r e d , i t s

p o s s i b l e o r i g i n s i n h i s work environment and h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways o f coping

with it.

Personality Inventory. The P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y i n c l u d e d 315 i t e m s , r e p r e -

s e n t i n g 19 s t a n d a r d i z e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c a l e s and one s c a l e developed f o r use i n t h i s

study. S i x t e e n o f the s c a l e s i n v l u d e d i n t h i s i n s t r u m e n t were measures o f p e r s o n a l i t y

variables. (See appendix f o r f u l l l i s t i n g . ) A l l of these were s e l e c t e d on t h e b a s i s

o f t h e i r demonstrated i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y or f a c t o r i a l p u r i t y , and because con-

s i d e r a b l e v a l i d a t i n g r e s e a r c h was a v a i l a b l e f o r them. The r e m a i n i n g scales measured

s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the j o b , s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s u p e r v i s i o n and frequency o f p h y s i c a l

complaints related to s t r a i n . The f i r s t two indexes were developed a t the Survey

Research C e n t e r and used i n a v a r i e t y o f s t u d i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; the l a t t e r index

d e r i v e s f r o m a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s by G u r i n o f a group of s e l f - r e p o r t e d symptoms t h a t

i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s had been found t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i l l and

normal persons.
 2-48

National Survey

The n a t i o n w i d e survey o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y was undertaken t o complement

t h e approach and the f i n d i n g s o f the i n t e n s i v e study o f f o c a l persons and t h e i r role

senders. The i n t e n d e d c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y , b r o a d l y speaking, l a y i n t h e a b i l i t y o f the

i n t e n s i v e d e s i g n t o i l l u m i n a t e the dynamics o f r o l e sending and the a b i l i t y o f t h e

s u r v e y d e s i g n t o i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t o f j u s t i f i a b l e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f such f i n d i n g s .

I n a d d i t i o n , we had i n mind an e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n f o r t h e n a t i o n a l s u r v e y .

R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f j o b - r e l a t e d t e n s i o n s i n the

population at large. W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f one n a t i o n a l survey o f m e n t a l h e a l t h

( G u r i h , Verogg, and F e l d , 1960) and some l i m i t e d and v a r i a b l e community s t u d i e s , i n -

f o r m a t i o n on work-induced t e n s i o n s i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r h i g h l y - s e l e c t e d , non-

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e groups, such as employees o f a p a r t i c u l a r company or p a t i e n t s a t a

certain c l i n i c . Moreover, t h e d e s c r i p t i v e t a s k - - d e l i n e a t i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t h e prob-

lem--can be r e a d i l y extended t o l o c a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r segments o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h

a r e most a f f e c t e d . Such l o c a t i o n begins w i t h t h e s i m p l e s t o f demographic comparisons,

and can o f course become a v e r y s o p h i s t i c a t e d f o r m o f a n a l y s i s . The c o m p a r a t i v e

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t , a m b i g u i t y , and t h e i r s e q u e l l a e has v a l u e a l s o f o r s u g g e s t i n g

e x p l a n a t o r y hypotheses about t h e o r i g i n s o f such c o n d i t i o n s . For a l l these r e a s o n s ,

we proposed t o r e p l i c a t e on a n a t i o n a l sample o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n as many measures

f r o m t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y as c o u l d be adapted t o survey p r o c e d u r e s .

The d e s i g n o f the n a t i o n a l survey u t i l i z e d t h e m u l t i - s t a g e p r o b a b i l i t y sample

developed i n t h e Survey Research Center ( K i s h 1953). T h i s sample i n c l u d e s a l l o f t h e

12 l a r g e s t m e t r o p o l i t a n areas i n the c o u n t r y , and a sample o f a l l o t h e r c o u n t i e s ,

r u r a l and urban. W i t h i n t h e sample c o u n t i e s , b l o c k s or segments and u l t i m a t e l y

d w e l l i n g u n i t s and i n d i v i d u a l respondents a r e s e l e c t e d w i t h known p r o b a b i l i t y .

(See the Appendix f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about sampling procedures and f o r e s t i -

mates o f s a m p l i n g e r r o r s . )
 2-49

In t h i s study respondents were chosen t o r e p r e s e n t a l l a d u l t s over e i g h t e e n

y e a r s o f age who were l i v i n g i n p r i v a t e households. I n t e r i v e w s were conducted with

1300 such persons. F o r purposes o f t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s , however, we a r e i n t e r e s t e d

in those people i n t h e sample who r e p o r t e d t h a t they u s u a l l y work f o r pay and who

were w o r k i n g more t h a n 20 hours per week a t t h e time o f t h e survey. The t o t a l number

of people thus c o n s i d e r e d i s 725.

The m a j o r v a r i a b l e i n the survey i s a r e v i s e d v e r s i o n o f t h e index o f j o b - r e l a t e d

t e n s i o n s a l r e a d y i n t r o d u c e d i n the e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s . As i n the i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , an

i n d e x s c o r e was c o n s t r u c t e d by adding responses across i t e m s . I n the survey t h e t o t a l

thus o b t a i n e d i s d i v i d e d by the number o f i t e m s answered. T h i s was done because a

number o f respondents, n o t a b l y those who a r e s e l f - e m p l o y e d , regarded one o r more items

as i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r work; by t a k i n g t h e average s c o r e p e r i t e m we have, o f c o u r s e ,

a b e t t e r b a s i s f o r comparing scores o f such i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h those who answered t h e

entire list.

The i t e m s making up t h e t e n s i o n i n d e x were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r as w e l l

as w i t h t h e i n d e x s c o r e . When these c o r r e l a t i o n s were compared w i t h those o b t a i n e d

in t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y t h e y were found t o be remarkably s i m i l a r . (See Appendix.)

For o n l y two out o f 124 comparisons d i d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o b t a i n e d on the

i n t e n s i v e study sample d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h a t o b t a i n e d i n t h e n a t i o n a l sample.

The m a j o r analyses o f the survey d a t a i n v o l v e the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a s e r i e s o f

h y p o t h e s i z e d c a u s a l o r l o c a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s t o the t e n s i o n i n d e x , o r t o components

of it. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f i x e d - r e s p o n s e i t e m s which comprise t h i s index, t h e

n a t i o n a l survey u t i l i z e d an open attempt t o e l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n about the number, con-

t e n t , and i n t e n s i t y o f j o b - r e l a t e d w o r r i e s . The i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n was as f o l l o w s :

i . i

Some people have problems a t work t h a t cause them v e r y l i t t l e w o r r y ,

w h i l e o t h e r s have the k i n d o f problems t h a t w o r r y them a good d e a l .
What a r e t h e problems i n your work t h a t • t e n d t o w o r r y you most o f t e n ?

In general., t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h w o r r i e s were mentioned corresponded closely

ic •• • , , .
Based o n our e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f t h e i n d e x , t h r e e items o u t Of t h e
o r i g i n a l f o u r t e e n were dropped and f i v e new items added, making a l i s t o f s i x t e e n t e n s i o n
items i n a l l .
 2-50

t o t h e t e n s i o n s c o r e s , and t h e c o n t e n t o f problems o c c a s i o n i n g w o r r y corresponded

t o the c l u s t e r s r e v e a l e d by t h e i t e m . r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e t e n s i o n index. These i n -

c l u d e l a c k o f resources f o r r o l e performance ( t o o l i t t l e a u t h o r i t y or i n f o r m a t i o n ) ,

problems o f o v e r l o a d ( c o n f l i c t s between q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y , o r i n p r i o r i t i e s ) ,

a m b i g u i t y r e g a r d i n g the e x p e c t a t i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n s o f o t h e r s , and problems o f

interpersonal conflict.

I n t h e n a t i o n a l s u r v e y , the " e x p l a n a t o r y " v a r i a b l e s used i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f

the t e n s i o n and worry scores are m a i n l y demographic v a r i a b l e s (age, sex, e d u c a t i o n ,

o c c u p a t i o n , c l a s s o f w o r k e r ) and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s ( s i z e , number o f echelons,

rank). F i n a l l y , d a t a were o b t a i n e d on some'hypothesized consequences o f t e n s i o n ,

i n c l u d i n g s e l f - r e p o r t s o f h e a l t h and absence from work.

I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e o v e r a l l design o f these p a i r e d s t u d i e s , t h e r e s u l t s are

r e p o r t e d t o g e t h e r t h r o u g h o u t t h i s book. Whenever t h e r e are f i n d i n g s from the

n a t i o n a l s u r v e y which c o r r o b o r a t e ( o r c h a l l e n g e ) the r e s u l t s o f the i n t e n s i v e s t u d y ,

they are p r e s e n t e d and d i s c u s s e d i n c o n t e x t . A l l t a b l e s are marked t o i n d i c a t e the

source o f t h e data they p r e s e n t . I n these ways we hope t h a t t h e reader may be helped

r a t h e r t h a n encumbered by t h e d u a l i t y o f t h i s r e s e a r c h d e s i g n .
 CHAPTER THREE

ROLE CONFLICTS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Only one o u t o f s i x men i n t h e U.S. l a b o r f o r c e r e p o r t b e i n g f r e e o f t e n s i o n on

the job. For some,.of course, t h e t e n s i o n s a r e r e l a t i v e l y m i l d andican r e a d i l y be

i

t a k e n i n . s t r i d e . . B u t f o r many t h e t e n s i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y severe t o impose heavy

c o s t s - - b o t h f o r t h e person and f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n I n w h i c h he 'works. Inasmuch as

r o l e c o n f l i c t s c o n s t i t u t e a major source o f t e n s i o n , t h i s c h a p t e r i s devoted t o a

more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e n a t u r e and immediate consequences o f c o n f l i c t . Later

chapters w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e some o f t h e sources o f c o n f l i c t and e x p l o r e i n t e n s i v e l y t h e

1 1

dynamics o f c o n f l i c t episodes f o r p a r t i c u l a r persons. B u t f i r s t , l e t us c o n s i d e r

b r i e f l y t h e scope o f t h e problem i n i n d u s t r y today as r e v e a l e d by t h e survey o f the

American l a b o r f o r c e .

I n Chapter 2 s e v e r a l t y p e s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t were i d e n t i f i e d , d i f f e r i n g with

r e s p e c t t o t h e f o r c e s induced on t h e person and t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which they a r e

likely t o arise. N e a r l y h a l f o f t h e wage and s a l a r y men i n o u r sample^'are c o n f r o n t e d

w i t h sender-sender c o n f l i c t s — 4 8 % r e p o r t t h a t from time t o t i m e they a r e caught " i n

the m i d d l e " between two s e t s o f people who want d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s from them ( 1 5 %

i n d i c a t e t h i s t o be a f r e q u e n t and s e r i o u s p r o b l e m ) . Thirtymine percent r e p o r t

b e i n g b o t h e r e d a t t i m e s by " t h i n k i n g t h a t ( t h e y ' l l ) n o t be a b l e t o s a t i s f y t h e

conflicting demands o f v a r i o u s people over ( t h e m ) . "

I n s e r t T a b l e 3-1 about here

T a b l e 3-1 i n d i c a t e s t h e v a r i e t y o f sources o f opposing r o l e pressures i n sender-•

sender c o n f l i c t s as r e p o r t e d by respondents i n t h e n a t i o n a l survey study. Only those

r e s p o n d e n t s who r e p o r t h a v i n g such c o n f l i c t s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d t h e r e ; e n t r i e s i n t h e

1. .
To f a c i l i t a t e comparison w i t h t h e i n t e n s i v e study o n l y wage and s a l a r y males from
the n a t i o n a l sample a r e r e p o r t e d h e r e .
 Table 3-1

M a t r i x o f Sender-Sender Role C o n f l i c t s '

(from t h e nation-wide study)

First Party to Conflict Second P a r t y t o C o n f l i c t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Management o r company
in general 2% 5% 3% 20% 17% 2%

2. Person's d i r e c t
supervisor(s) (5%) 4% 8% 8% 3% 7% 1%

3. Co-workers w i t h i n
organization (8%) (8%) 3% 2%

4. Person's
subordinates (3%) ( 8 % ) (--) 1%

5. U n i o n or' i t s
representatives (20%) (3%) ( - ) (--) 1%

6. Extra-organizational
. a s s o c i a t e s 2. (17%) ( 7 % ) (--) ( 1 % ) (--) 2% 1%

7. Other ( f a m i l y ,
friends, etc.) (2%) ( 1 % ) ( 2 % ) (--) (1%) (1%) 2%

Totals: 57% 36% 21% 12%. 24% , 28% 9%

The column and l i n e headings i n d i c a t e persons o r groups whom t h e respondents

i d e n t i f y as c o n t r i b u t i n g t o sender-sender c o n f l i c t s . C e l l e n t r i e s r e f l e c t the percent
o f a l l t h o s e who r e p o r t c o n f l i c t who f e e l " i n t h e m i d d l e between t h e two groups
11

d e f i n i n g the c e l l .
2
" E x t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l " r o l e senders i n c l u d e such b u s i n e s s c o n t a c t s as c l i e n t s ,
c u s t o m e r s and s u p p l i e r s and o u t s i d e r s who have r e g u l a t o r y o r a d v i s o r y r e l a t i o n s w i t h
the company, e.g-, b u s i n e s s or. p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , government a g e n c i e s , and
l e g a l and consulting advisors. ,
3.
T o t a l s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t who r e p o r t t h e person o r group a t t h e head o f the
column t o be a p a r t y t o t h e c o n f l i c t , r e g a r d l e s s o f who r e p r e s e n t s t h e o t h e r p a r t y .
F i g u r e s i n ( ) below t h e main d i a g o n a l a r e r e p e a t s o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g c e l l s above.
T o t a l N=*259; "no c o n f l i c t " and " n o t a s c e r t a i n e d " cases a r e o m i t t e d .
 '3- 3

c e l l s i n d i c a t e the p e r c e n t o f cases i n which the o p p o s i t i o n i s between members o f t h e

c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h the row and column r e p r e s e n t . S e v e r a l p o i n t s o f i n t e r e s t are t o be

found i n t h i s t a b l e . j

F i r s t , the importance o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u p e r i o r s i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n t ; combining

c a t e g o r i e s 1 and 2, 88% o f a l l sender-sender c o n f l i c t s i n v o l v e p r e s s u r e s from above.

T h i s i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e the m a j o r d i r e c t i v e s and c o n s t r a i n t s i n one's r o l e

f l o w down the c h a i n o f command, it i s i n t e r e s t i n g how o f t e n ( 5 7 % . o f the cases) they

speak o f these pressures from on h i g h as coming from some impersonal source--"the

company" o r "management." But 36%, s t i l l a s u b s t a n t i a l number, i m p l i c a t e t h e i r own

direct supervisors. I n c o n t r a s t o n l y 12% o f the c o n f l i c t s i n v o l v e p r e s s u r e s from

t h e person's s u b o r d i n a t e s , and these are almost always i n o p p o s i t i o n t o pressures

from s u p e r i o r s . I n e v a l u a t i n g t h i s f i n d i n g , however, one must bear i n mind t h a t

many p e o p l e i n the l a b o r f o r c e have no s u b o r d i n a t e s - - a s w i l l be shown i n a l a t e r

chapter, the p i c t u r e changes s u b s t a n t i a l l y when t h e a n a l y s i s i s r e s t r i c t e d t o those

who have s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

I n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s - - t h o s e i n v o l v i n g p r e s s u r e s a l l o f which stem from

w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n - - a c c o u n t f o r 4 1 % o f the sender-sender c o n f l i c t s r e p o r t e d . A l l

b u t 3% i n v o l v e s u p e r i o r s and 25% i n v o l v e the person's d i r e c t s u p e r v i s o r as one p a r t y

t o the c o n f l i c t . The f o l l o w i n g cases r e p r e s e n t examples o f i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t l o n a l

conflicts:

— P r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l supervisor--"We have t o c o n t r o l m a t e r i a l and t h e r e ' s a

a d i f f e r e n c e between what p r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l wants and what t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
and management want."

— T r u c k d r i v e r - - " T h e d i s p a t c h e r d i s p a t c h e s t r u c k s a t a c e r t a i n t i m e . The s t o r e
manager wants the goods d e l i v e r e d a t a c e r t a i n t i m e . So, the driver" I s i n the
m i d d l e between t h e two." ,
i

- - E l e c t r o n i c s t e c h n i c i a n - - " I was t r a n s f e r r e d from one department t o a n o t h e r and

t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t between the two departments. My l o y a l t y should l i e w i t h the
second department, b u t i t l i e s w i t h the f i r s t . - 1 1
 3-4

- - A s s i s t a n t a r t d i r e c t o r , a d v e r t i s i n g department—"Salesmen request s p e c i a l types

o f p r o m o t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . My boss f e e l s t h a t I t ' s n o t d e s i r a b l e . So, I'm n o t
p l e a s i n g our salesmen i n t h i s r e s p e c t . "

— D e s i g n e n g i n e e r — " I t ' s between what t h e e n g i n e e r s want and what t h e shop

p e o p l e want."

Even more common a r e c o n f l i c t s which a r e induced i n p a r t by p r e s s u r e s from persons

or g r o u p s o u t s i d e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n — 597o o f a l l sender-sender c o n f l i c t s r e p o r t e d i n
i

the n a t i o n a l survey. Two major forms a r e common: those i n v o l v i n g p r e s s u r e s from

l a b o r u n i o n s o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s (247o) and those i n w h i c h o u t s i d e b u s i n e s s

associates play a part (28%). The f o l l o w i n g examples i l l u s t r a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s .stemming

from union-management c o n f l i c t s :
- - P i p e f i t t e r - - " B e t w e e n u n i o n and management. Can't do e l e c t r i c a l work l i k e
management w a n t s - - ! have t o g e t an e l e c t r i c i a n t o do t h a t o r break t h e con-
t r a c t w i t h the union."
l

— G e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r , a u t o m o b i l e assemblv--"Management demands c e r t a i n work

s t a n d a r d s and u n i o n r e j e c t s them. I'm r i g h t i n t h e m i d d l e . "

--Machine o p e r a t o r — " P r o d u c t i o n r a t e used t o be 330 u n i t s p e r hour, t h e women

worked hard and c o u l d do t h a t . Since we made 400 they've; changed t h e p r o d u c t i o n
r a t e t o t h a t , and t h e women c a n ' t g e t 400. T h a t b o t h e r s me because t h e union and
t h e women h o l d i t a g a i n s t us> f o r g e t t i n g 400."
•i

Customer-company r e l a t i o n s o f t e n c o n t a i n t h e seeds o f r o l e c o n f l i c t s as i n d i c a t e d
, • i

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases;

— O i l f u r n a c e r e p a i r man°-"Between t h e o f f i c e and t h e customer--customer may

f e e l she's e n t i t l e d t o one t h i n g ; o f f i c e says she's n o t ; I have t o e x p l a i n t o
customer."

— D r u g s t o r e manager--"In between h e l p and owner, customers and boss. How

much c r e d i t t o a l l q w - - i t ' s something a l l t h e t i m e . " ,

--Farm machinery mechanic°-"Between customers and boss on f r e e s e r v i c e . A l s o ,

two g i r l s i n t h e o f f i c e w i l l promise r e p a i r s e r v i c e i n v o l v i n g me f o r t h e
same t i m e . "

--Waitress°-"Customer i s supposed t o be r i g h t b u t boss sometimes t h i n k s he I s

and you're i n t h e m i d d l e . "

- - P h a r m a c l s t " " A d o c t o r w i l l w r i t e a p r e s c r i p t i o n and t e l l t h e p a t i e n t i t w i l l

c o s t " x " amount o f money, b u t I have t o charge " y " amount t o stay i n
b u s i n e s s - ~ t h i s makes t h e p a t i e n t unhappy. A l s o , one n e i g h b o r b e n e f i t s from
some m e d i c i n e so a n o t h e r wants me t o g i v e h e r t h e same t h i n g . I must use my
judgment and t r y t o t e l l her i t m i g h t not be good f o r h e r . "
 3-5

--Salesafon--''A customer w i l l want a b e t t e r p r i c e . I c a n ' t do i t b u t f e e l i t

s h o u l d be b e t t e r and management won't a l l o w i t . 1 1

S i m i l a r problems a r e found f o r those who d e a l w i t h s p e c i a l k i n d s o f c l i e n t s :

I

--Teacher--"Between p a r e n t s and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . O c c a s i o n a l l y I have t o

c a r r y / o u t . o r d e r s t h a t p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n do n o t l i k e b u t those i n
a u t h o r i t y r e q u e s t , i t — d i s c i p l i n e and r e t e n t i o n o f f i r s t g r a d e r s . "

- - P h y s i c i a n a t U,j5. P u b l i c H e a l t h H o s p i t a l — " E i a p i p y e e w i t h t h e c o m p a n y — p a t i e n t
a n d the company, I'm i n ' t h e m i d d l e . Coast. guardsmen want me, t o t e l l them
t h e y a r e 111—Companies want me t o say they a r e n ' t i l l — I ' m c o n s t a n t l y i n
a dilemma."

Overload stands o u t as a n o t h e r type o f r o l e c o n f l i c t c o n f r o n t i n g v a s t numbers

i n the l a b o r force: 45% o f t h e wage and s a l a r y males I n d i c a t e a t v a r i o u s f r e q u e n c i e s

b e i n g d i s t u r b e d - a b o u t " f e e l i n g t h a t ( t h e y ) have too' heavy a w o r k l o a d , one t h a t they

c a n ' t p o s s i b l y f i n i s h d u r i n g an o r d i n a r y work day."** And 4 3 % a r e d i s t r e s s e d by

" t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e amount o f work ( t h e y ) have t o do may i n t e r f e r e w i t h how w e l l it

g e t s done." An a c c o u n t i n g manager summarizes w e l l , " I have more work- t o do t h a n I c a n g e t

done w e l l enough t o s a t i s f y my standards o f q u a l i t y . "

i " "I " " " '

P e r s o n a l - r o l e c o n f l i c t s — c o n f l i c t s between t h e demands o f t h e r o l e and such

=r : t _r - 1

p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t i e s as i n t e r n a l needs and v a l u e s and p e r s o n a l a b i l i t i e s — a l s o ^

a p p a r e n t l y a r i s e i n s u b s t a n t i a l numbers. " F e e l i n g t h a t you have t o do t h i n g s on

. ; ' '•., • , . < . . .

t h e j o b w h i c h a r e a g a i n s t y o u r b e t t e r judgment" i s a source o f some cdncern t o 45%

• • t "

o f t h e men i n our sample, and some 22% a r e b o t h e r e d by " f e e l i n g t h a t ( t h e y ' r e ) n o t

f u l l y q u a l i f i e d t o handle ( t h e i r ) j o b s . " *

Consider t h e f o l l o w i n g cases:

— W a i t r e s s - - " I ' m o f t e n t r o u b l e d because a customer comes i n and spends b u t he

a l s o misbehaves." (She has t o be p l e a s a n t t o people who make d e g r a d i n g
advances toward h e r ) .

- - S o c i a l w o r k e r - - " I n t h e area o f p e r s o n n e l standards and p r a c t i c e s , t h e r e i s

• 'a c o n f l i c t between t h e Board's p o l i c i e s and ithe employees' a s p i r a t i o n s . "

Even more ( 5 6 % ) s e l f - e m p l o y e d men s u f f e r from such d i f f i c u l t i e s , and i n more

i n t e n s e f o r m s , e.g., 277., a r e o v e r l o a d e d a g r e a t d e a l o f ^he t i m e .
 3-6

— S e c r e t a r y - - Sometimes i t s ha.rd t o make t h e younger ones

1 1
see t h i n g s t h e way
we o l d e r ones do. Our experience has taUght us c e r t a i n t h i n g s and sometimes
t h e younger g e n e r a t i o n t h i n k t h e i r way i s b e s t . "(This 11
woman i s c o n f l i c t e d
because" i n f a c t She f e a r s h e r younger co-workers may be r i g h t and t h a t she
may o f f e r s k i l l s t h a t a r e becoming o b s o l e t e ) ,
i

If c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e work r o l e a r e major sources o f s t r e s s , 1

c o n f l i c t s a l s o a r i s e between t h e work r o l e and o t h e r r o l e s o f Importance b o t h t o

the men and t o s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l . N e a r l y a t h i r d o f t h e n a t i o n a l sample a r e a t

t i m e s d i s t u r b e d by t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i r j o b s i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i r f a m i l y l i f e . Thus,

r o l e - r o l e c o n f l i c t s are also found i n s i g n i f i c a n t numbers. I n T a b l e 3-1, t h e 9%

i n v o l v i n g t h e "Other" c a t e g o r y a r e l a r g e l y o f t h i s n a t u r e .

I n s h o r t , there i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t problems o f o c c u p a t i o n a l

r o l e c o n f l i c t abound i n America today. F o r many these problems stand as m i n o r and

occasional i r r i t a n t s .
1
Many o t h e r s face them as c h r o n i c s t r e s s e s . And f o r some t h e

personal costs reach d i s a s t r o u s proportions.

The N a t u r e o f Role C o n f l i c t s i n I n d u s t r y .

If problems o f c o n f l i c t a r e .ubiguitous i n o u r complex i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , they

i' ,

are a l s o e x t r e m e l y v a r i e d and h i g h l y p e r s o n a l i n n a t u r e . The most troublesome

features o f a c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n c o n f r o n t i n g one person may be q u i t e u n l i k e those

f a c i n g , a n o t h e r , even i f they occupy s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s i n i n d u s t r y . While we can

i d e n t i f y common t y p e s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t , i n many r e s p e c t s each c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e i s

unique. S i t u a t i o n s d i f f e r t h r o u g h ' t i m e and p l a c e , o f t e n i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways, and

(as we s h a l l see i n P a r t V) t h e i d i o s y n c r a s i e s o f t h e person f a c i n g t h e c o n f l i c t

contribute t o i t s uniqueness. Consider t h e f o l l o w i n g cases:

Case 6500. L e t us b e g i n w i t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a c o n f l i c t episode t h a t

i l l u s t r a t e s a problem q u i t e f a m i l i a r t o s t u d e n t s o f i n d u s t r i a l management, t h a t

of a production foreman i n a l a r g e m a n u f a c t u r i n g p l a n t . Foreman's m a j o r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t o keep a g i v e n s e c t o r o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e operating a t a

l e v e l o f e f f i c i e n c y s p e c i f i e d by o t h e r management o f f i c i a l s . Here i s h i s description

 3-7

of a t y p i c a l i n c i d e n t i n the performance o f h i s jobs

"The c h i e f ( u n i o n ) steward was o f f f o r about t h r e e o r f o u r days, and i n

t h e time he was o f f e v e r y t h i n g was r u n n i n g smoothly. I had b r o k e n a r e c o r d
as f a r as, p r o d u c t i o n went on my l i n e , b u t a c t u a l l y t h e r e seemed t o be some
h a r d f e e l i n g s among some f e l l o w s whose j o b s preceded i t . (Ed. note: i . e . ,
whose work had t o be completed b e f o r e Mr. A's s e c t o r o f the l i n e c o u l d st^art
t h e i r w o r k ) . Eyery day one o f the f e l l a s i n p a r t i c u l a r would get i n t h e r e
and break h i s back j u s t t o g e t over 400; i n o t h e r words, i f we g e t 400, t h a t ' s
c o n s i d e r e d a good day's work, and we were f i t t i n g 443, 417, ,and ,so on, day
i n and day o u t . Today t h e steward came I n and he g o t wind o f what t h i s
f e l l a was d o i n g , and he went up t h e r e and scared the d a y l i g h t s out o f t h i s
fella. Gave him some k i n d o f warning, t h a t I never g o t the f u l l dope on, but
i t g o t back t o me, w i t h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t he t o l d him 'Don't you dare go
o v e r 400 o r r u n 400 any more. 0
JjJc n a t u r a l l y I c o n t a c t e d t h i s steward. . We
had a b i g row and he was c a l l i n g me names and s a y i n g i t ' s a d i r t y l i e and
s t u f f like that. I s a i d °No, i t i s n t ; you g o t t h i s man i n t h e r e scared; i n
e

f a c t , he hasn't even h i t p r o d u c t i o n . P r o d u c t i o n i s 431 on t h a t j o b . (Ed.

n o t e : i . e . , the ' o f f i c i a l p r o d u c t i o n standard i s 431.)
1
When he h i t s 400 I
d o n ' t see why i t i s any o f y o u r b u s i n e s s t o argue w i t h him' and scare him l i k e
that. 9
And I , g o t h o l d o f my g e n e r a l foreman, and he t a l k e d t o them on the
s i d e and i t _ came o u t t h a t he had t o l d t h i s f e l l a t h a t t h e l b o y s are mad a t
h i m g e t t i n g so many o f them and t h e y ' r e going t o meet him a t his' u n i o n h a l l
o r something l i k e t h a t . And l i k e I say, my g e n e r a l foreman i s w o n d e r f u l ' a t
t h i n g s l i k e t h a t ; we g o t t h a t t h i n g s t r a i g h t e n e d out andj he ( t h e s t e w a r d )
w e n t back and a p o l o g i z e d t o the boys." /

N o t e t h a t the episode s t a r t s w i t h a c o n f l i c t f o r the worker c r e a t e d by the

c o n t r a d i c t o r y demands o f Foreman--for a h i g h r a t e o f p r o d u c t i o n — a n d the U n i o n

Steward — f o r a lower r a t e w h i c h p e r m i t s o t h e r s a l o n g t h e l i n e a more r e l a x e d pace.

But t h e c o n f l i c t soon t u r n s t o focus on Foreman h i m s e l f .

Qs "From the t h i n g s you s a i d you want' t o keep on good terms w i t h the men."

A: "That's the t r u t h . The reason I'm s a y i n g that,' as you know I've been
b r o k e n f o u r o r f i v e t i m e s , and t h a t ' s a b i g scare r i g h t t h e r e f o r the
s i m p l e ' r e a s o n t h a t I v e p r e v i o u s l y been warned r e g a r d i n g p u s s i e s . w i t h
s

the steward. (He s a i d ) I°11 remember t h i s when you come back down t o
S

production." I n o t h e r Words, when we got out o f s a l a r y , a n d back down

t o p r o d u c t i o n (Ed. notes , Many foremen are t e m p o r a r i l y demofjted by t h i s
company d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f heavy l a y - o f f s . ) we have t o be OK'd by t h e
u n i o n i n o r d e r t o g e t back t o our j o b a g a i n . So you're i n the m i d d l e
t h e r e and you d o n t know what you°re g o i n g t o do.
fl
I may be here a day,
a month, a year, I don't know, a n d ' a l l o f a sudden they don't need me
any more, and I go back t o p r o d u c t i o n and the the u n i o n don't want me.
That's n o t o n l y w i t h me, b u t a l o t o f s u p e r v i s o r s a r e .snaky on t h a t
p o i n t . . . we have no backing whereas the workmen have the u n i o n t o
back them up, the foreman has n o t h i n g . You're e i t h e r a good Joe o r y o u ' r e
j u s t out."

T h i s case i s c l a s s i c i n i t s s i m p l i c i t y . Foreman i s faced w i t h two s e t s o f

 3-8

r o l e senders who want q u i t e i n c o m p a t i b l e t h i n g s from him, and each o f w h i c h has

c o n s i d e r a b l e power over him. Foreman r i d e s a d e l i c a t e balance between these two

s e t s o f p r e s s u r e s , a t t e m p t i n g t o be b o t h "a good Joe" t o those i n the u n i o n and t o

be, i n t h e eyes o f h i s s u p e r i o r s , a r e s p e c t e d foreman who gets h i s production out.

A p e r s o n a l f a c t o r a l s o deserves n o t e : Foreman has a problem c o n t r o l l i n g h i s

temper. D e s c r i b i n g h i m s e l f as a person who l i k e s c o m p e t i t i o n and b a r g a i n i n g , he

f r e q u e n t l y f i n d s h i s j o b p l a c i n g him i n s i t u a t i o n s where he f e e l s anger and i s

provoked t o express i t . However, e x p r e s s i n g anger c l e a r l y i s b o t h dangerous and

t o some e x t e n t g u i l t - p r o d u c i n g . The i n t e r v i e w e r notes i n t e r e s t i n g l y i n t h i s

c o n n e c t i o n t h a t "Foreman i s q u i t e a n x i o u s about s i c k n e s s and a c c i d e n t s on t h e j o b .

He r e g a l e d me w i t h anecdotes about workmen d r o p p i n g dead on t h e f l o o r o r b e i n g

mauled b y machines." Foreman h i m s e l f says t h a t he f r e q u e n t l y has t o l e a v e a

s i t u a t i o n " t o g e t h i m s e l f under c o n t r o l " and t h a t he's l i k e l y t o have arguments

w i t h h i s w i f e a f t e r a tense day on the j o b . I n s h o r t , the c o n f l i c t t h a t c h a r a c t e r -

i z e s Foreman's j o b poses two problems f o r him, t h a t o f p e r f o r m i n g i n such a way as

t o m i n i m i z e d i s a p p r o v a l from h i s r o l e senders, and t h a t o f c o p i n g w i t h t h e

e m o t i o n s (and . t h e i r s o c i a l and psychosomatic consequences) generated a t work.

It i s f i t t i n g perhaps, t o b e g i n w i t h a case i n which t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n f l i c t

f o r t h e person stems from the broader s o c i a l c o n f l i c t between u n i o n and management.

J u s t a s a major f u n c t i o n o f management i s t o induce workers t o p e r f o r m e f f e c t i v e l y

f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , a major f u n c t i o n o f u n i o n s i s t o p r o t e c t workers from undue

i n f l u e n c e , from i n d u c t i o n s which may reach e x p l o i t a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n s . I n some

r e s p e c t s , c o n f l i c t i s t h e essence o f union-management r e l a t i o n s . What i s

s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s f o r present! purposes i s t h a t t h i s c o n f l i c t i s not r e s t r i c t e d t o

t h e b a r g a i n i n g t a b l e and t h e p i c k e t l i n e . The p r e s s u r e s and counter-pressures

a r e p l a y e d o u t i n t h e d a i l y l i v e s o f thousands o f workers and s u p e r v i s o r s .

Case 4200. N i g h t e r i s a g e n e r a l foreman I n an a u t o m o b i l e engine assembly

 3-9

plant, a supervisor o f s e v e r a l foremen and t h e i r crews on t h e evening shift. He

i s a l s o c o n f r o n t e d by i n c o m p a t i b l e demands from d i f f e r e n t r o l e senders, b u t t h e

source o f the c o n f l i c t i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h a t f o r Foreman* Nighter r e p o r t s

directly t o and i s s u p e r v i s e d by s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f the evening s h i f t b u t the

s c h e d u l i n g o f the assembly l i n e i s drawn up by people on the day , s h i f t and work

o r d e r s a r e passed on t o N i g h t e r by h i s day-time c o u n t e r p a r t . Except d u r i n g p e r i o d s

of v e r y heavy p r o d u c t i o n , the n i g h t s h i f t i s scheduled to f i l l the f e e d e f -

l i n e s so t h a t the day s h i f t can o p e r a t e t h e t o t a l assembly process w i t h o u t idelays

for r e s t o c k i n g components i n the feeder l i n e s * But, as i s t r i i e in;many p r o d u c t i o n

p l a n t s , managers a t each l e v e l are rewarded I n p a r t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r a t e s o f

1

production. F a c i l i t a t i n g the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f the day s h i f t g a i n s f a r l e s s r e c o g n i -

t i o n ' f o r t h e evening s u p e r i n t e n d e n t than p r o d u c i n g a l a r g e number o f completed

engines. I n N i g h t e r s wordsr-
9

'fcl'.l the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f the second s h i f t out t h e r e wanted was b l o c k s .

He d i d n ' t g i v e a damn how t h e day s h i f t wanted t o o p e r a t e . He wanted
b l o c k s o f f the l i n e . He wanted t o see a b i g count. He_ d i d n ' t g i v e a damn
how t h e h e l l I g o t them. Then when I ' d " s t r i p the end o f the ( f e e d e r ) l i n e ,
the next day I ' d be c a l l e d i n t o the o f f i c e . , They would ask me how come ,
I'd s t r i p p e d t h e l i n e s out* I w o u l d n ' t p o i n t a f i n g e r a t anytody. I ' d
t e l l them, ' t o g e t the b l o c k s . " 8

Qs "What do you do t o handle t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g ? "

A: " W e l l , i t ' s something l i k e a r o s e between two t h o r n s here., You t r y t o

take as much o u t and s t i l l t r y t o maneuver the t h i n g so the l i n e s l o o k
1

f u l l , you know what I mean, b u t y o u ' r e not h e l p i n g the s i t u a t i o n any.

Then you g o t t a say so and so t o l d me t o do t h i s . W e l l , the day s h i f t
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , says, °I t o l d you t o do i t t h i s way. Why d i d n ' t you
follow i t ? ' W e l l , I'm w o r k i n g f o r b o t h o f you. Then he m i g h t say, 'Who
the h e l l a r e you g o i n g t o s a t i s f y ? ' and I would say, 'That's what I
want t o know. 1
This, guy here, i f you s a i d he c a l l e d me t o take i t , t h e n
he'd say, he d i d n ' t take t h a t c r a p , see? Do what t h e h e l l he t o l d you,
never mind p o i n t i n g a f i n g e r a t him."

Q: "Did you e v e r t e l l them t h a t you c o u l d n ' t f i g u r e o u t what you were

supposed t o do?"

A; " W e l l , a t t h e time t h i s was g o i n g on was when t h i s new s t i r up was coming

i n here, and I d o n t know what the h e l l a l l was i n v o l v e d I n i t , so t h e
3

o n l y t h i n g I c o u l d do was t o t r y t o do a j o b and t r y t o h o l d my job,, I n

s p i t e o f e v e r y t h i n g .I'm n o t a q u i t t e r .
:
I ' l l scrap anybody,"
 3-10

Q: " A n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t you t h o u g h t o f d o i n g t o handle t h a t k i n d o f c o n f l i c t ? "

i •_ ' ' „ ' ' '

A: n
0 h , you can do a l o t o f t h i n k i n g b u t you j u s t have t o go o u t t h e r e , wish'
f o r t h e b e s t , t h a t ' s about a l l y o u can do. You a r e j u s t h e l p l e s s t h e r e a t

the time."

N i g h t e r i s caught i n t h e u n e n v i a b l e p o s i t i o n o f h a v i n g two p o w e r f u l and a m b i t i o u s

bosses who have v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s i n t h e way he performs h i s j o b ; I f he s a t i s f i e s

one o f them he must i n c u r t h e w r a t h o f t h e o t h e r . What makes t h i s s i t u a t i o n even

more d e v a s t a t i n g i s t h a t n e i t h e r o f h i s bosses i s w i l l i n g t o face and t r y t o

r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t they a r e c r e a t i n g , l e a v i n g an e s s e n t i a l l y ' " h e l p l e s s " N i g h t e r t o

absorb t h e t e n s i o n s and t o pay t h e c o s t s .

Case 6600. L e s t on£ conclude t h a t c o n f l i c t i s t h e e x c l u s i v e domain o f foremen,

l e t us l o o k a t a problem faced by Handler,- a m i d d l e management e x e c u t i v e r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r t h e s t o r a g e and movement o f m a t e r i a l s i n and o u t o f a m a n u f a c t u r i n g p l a n t .

Perhaps t h e s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t aspect o f h i s j o b i s a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s task a t

the l o w e s t p o s s i b l e c o s t t o t h e company. But several proposals f o r d r a s t i c

changes i n present methods were opposed by o t h e r s whose own methods o f o p e r a t i o n or

" v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s " would be a f f e c t e d , a l t h o u g h i t was c l e a r t h e p r o p o s a l s would

have l e d t o c o n s i d e r a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n c o s t s . When Handler was asked how much

p r e s s u r e he f e l t upon h i m to' improve t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s work, he responded?

" W e l l , t h a t ' s d i f f i c u l t f o r me t o answer, b e c a u s e - - I don't know how t o put

this°-'the o n l y t h i n g I can t e l l you i s t h e q u a l i t y o f my performance i s
(

never c h a l l e n g e d . , . But my own p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n i s t h a t , t h e q u a l i t y o f

my performance ,1s n o t good."

Qs " I n what sense?"

A; " I n t h e sense o f n o t b e i n g able t o j u s t i f y my own e x i s t e n c e . I have a

f e e l i n g o f why t h e company pays me a s a l a r y and why I have my j o b . . . To
me i f we cannot show a d o l l a r c o s t s a v i n g i n t h e improvement o f o p e r a t i o n s ,
t h e n we a r e j u s t overhead. And because o f reasons t h a t I b e l i e v e a r e
beyond our c o n t r o l , we have n o t been a b l e t o m a n i f e s t the- savings t h a t I
t h i n k we s h o u l d . "

Perhaps Handler's c o n f l i c t can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g termss

"Do t h e j o b i n t h e most economical f a s h i o n , b u t d o n t change t h e way we a r e doing

B
 3-11

t h i n g s now." N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e p r e s s u r e f o r c o s t r e d u c t i o n c o n t i n u e s and i s u s u a l l y

absorbed b y r e d u c t i o n s i n Mr.. H a n d l e r ' s r e q u e s t s f o r more s t a f f o r equipment.

Here we have a case i n w h i c h a broad o b j e c t i v e , supported by a l l major role

senders, i s f r u s t r a t e d by o p p o s i t i o n t o s p e c i f i c proposed p l a n s o f a c t i o n . Handler's

f e e l i n g s a b o u t t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y between t h e performance g o a l s demanded o f him and

the means a l l o w e d t o him, however, a r e exacerbated by h i s own s t a n d a r d s f o r p e r -

formance. As a n engineer t r a i n e d i n such q u e s t i o n s he has s t r o n g internalized

i , •.

standards about t h e way h i s assignment should be c a r r i e d o u t . Thus, even though

many o f h i s r o l e - senders-'-by i m p l i c a t i o n - - w a n t o n l y m i n o r changes i n t h e s i t u a t i o n ,

it i s a p p a r e n t from t h i s and o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w t h a t he f e e l s c o n f l i c t e d

between c o n t i n u i n g t o press f o r s u b s t a n t i a l changes i n m a t e r i a l h a n d l i n g o r j u s t

administering the e x i s t i n g program.

Even t h i s b r i e f sampling, o f a few problem cases g i v e s ample evidence o f t h e

h i g h l y v a r i a b l e and p e r s o n a l n a t u r e o f c o n f l i c t . Many f a c t o r s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

e n v i r o n m e n t and i n t h e p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f t h e f o c a l person and h i s r o l e senders may

c o n t r i b u t e t o the generation o f c o n f l i c t . A s i m i l a r range o f v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t s the

i

p e r s o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o s t s o f c o n f l i c t and t h e ease w i t h which i t i s coped.

To u n d e r s t a n d t h e dynamics o f c o n f l i c t r e q u i r e s an i n t i m a t e f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h

s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l " case. However, s e v e r a l I m p o r t a n t g e n e r a l -

i z a t i o n s a r e p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t d o i n g v i o l e n c e t o t h e unique q u a l i t i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l

cases. I n f a c t t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s based on t h e premise t h a t an i n t e n s i v e

a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l cases.coupled w i t h a q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f
< i • -

g e n e r a l t r e n d s y i e l d s a more comprehensive and s y s t e m a t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the

• f
processes t h r o u g h w h i c h c o n f l i c t s a r i s e , a r e r e s o l v e d o r n o t , and take t h e i r toll..

A t t h i s p o i n t l e t us note j u s t t h r e e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about the .nature o f r o l e

conflict: 1. C o n f l i c t s about what a person s h o u l d do a l s o g e n e r a t e c o n f l i c t s In .

the p e r s o n — c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r e s s u r e s from t h e e n v i r o n m e n t g i v e r i s e t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l
 3-12

c o n f l i c t s i n .the person. 2. The needs and v a l u e s and c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e person

c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o n f l i c t j u s t as do t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e s . And 3, t h e
c o n f l i c t I s generated by p r e s s u r e s o r f o r c e s toward change i n t h e way t h e r o l e i s
p e r f o r m e d - - t h e c o n f l i c t a r i s e s because, t h e s t a t u s quo i s unacceptable e i t h e r t o
the r o l e occupant o r t o some o r a l l o f h i s r o l e senders. (This property o f role
c o n f l i c t i s so c e n t r a l and p e r v a s i v e t h a t i t i s tantamount t o d e f i n i t i o n ) .

P e r s o n a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Costs o f C o n f l i c t

Some o f t h e c o n f l i c t s d e s c r i b e d above may seem p e t t y and t r a n s i e n t a t f i r s t

g l a n c e , h a r d l y m a t t e r s f o r major concern. Each o f us i s faced w i t h minor conflicts

and f r u s t r a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t o u r l i v e s and we seem t o t a k e most o f them p r e t t y much

in stride. I n f a c t , one m i g h t w e l l make a case f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g some c o n f l i c t as

e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e c o n t i n u e d development o f mature and competent human b e i n g s .

Why t h e n such concern about r o l e c o n f l i c t s i n i n d u s t r y ? What a r e t h e consequences

of c o n f l i c t which need t o be u n d e r s t o o d and d e a l t w i t h ?

Answers t o these q u e s t i o n s a r e ^ s t r i k i n g l y a p p a r e n t , b u t a l s o i n some r e s p e c t s

s u b t l e a n d complex. Of most immediate concern a r e t h e p e r s o n a l c o s t s o f excessive

i

emotional s t r a i n . B u t o f more f a r r e a c h i n g i m p o r t , common r e a c t i o n s t o c o n f l i c t - -

e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h t h e c o n f l i c t o r i t s a s s o c i a t e d t e n s i o n s - - a r e a l l t o o o f t e n

d i s f u n c t i o h a l f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as an on-going s o c i a l system and a r e o f t e n

s e l f - d e f e a t i n g f o r t h e person i n t h e l o n g r u n . L e t us l o o k more c l o s e l y a t t h e

evidence f o r these c o n c l u s i o n s and a t t h e forms w h i c h they may t a k e .

T e n s i o n , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and i n n e r c o n f l i c t s . V a r i o u s forms o f e m o t i o n a l

t u r m o i l - - a n x i e t y , t e n s i o n , f r u s t r a t i o n , w o r r y , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n j ^ . f u t i l i t y or

h e l p l e s s n e s s , f a i l u r e , and l a c k o f c o n f i d e n c e and self=esteem--have l o n g

been a s s o c i a t e d ( i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p s y c h i a t r i c l i t e r a t u r e ) with

conflict. We should expect them t o be s i m i l a r l y r e l a t e d t o o b j e c t i v e r o l e

 3-13

c o n f l i c t s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t these c o n f l i c t s a r e i n t e r n a l i z e d , i . e . , t o t h e e x t e n t

t h a t the o b j e c t i v e r o l e pressures generate c o n f l i c t i n g psychological f o r c e s i n

the p e r s o n . Some evidence f o r t h i s q u a l i f y i n g phrase i s g i v e n i n l i n e a_ o f Table

i
3-2. In t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s , the sample o f f o c a l persons from t h e I n t e n s i v e
J i

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l study has been d i v i d e d a t t h e median on the composite Role C o n f l i c t

I n d e x i n t o h i g h and low c o n f l i c t groups. The mean i n t e n s i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e d

p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n f l i c t , as judged from t h e p r o t o c o l s o f t h e second i n t e r v i e w w i t h

f o c a l p e r s o n s , i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r f o r those i n h i g h c o n f l i c t r o l e s t h a n f o r

t h o s e who face l i t t l e o r no e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n f l i c t . I n f a c t , o n l y 28% o f those i n

the low c o n f l i c t group m e n t i o n any f e e l i n g s o f c o n f l i c t i n t h e open-ended i n t e r v i e w ,

w h i c h 5oX.under h i g h c o n f l i c t d i s c u s s such problems and g e n e r a l l y p o i n t t o them

as b e i n g much more severe and t a x i n g . The presence o f c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e e x p e c t -

a t i o n s i n one's s o c i a l environment tends t o produce i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s . ;

such p e r s o n s t e n d t o be c o n f l i c t e d i n the p s y c h i a t r i c sense o f t h e term ( c f .

Karen Horney's Our I n n e r C o n f l i c t s ) as w e l l as i n the s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense

i n which r o l e c o n f l i c t s are defined.

I n s e r t Table 3-2 about here

i 1

• i,

The presence o f c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e p r e s s u r e s may i n f l u e n c e the a f f e c t i v e

e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e person i n a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r ways as w e l l . L i n e b* o f T a b l e 3-2

i n d i c a t e s t h a t e m o t i o n a l t e n s i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f the j o b

i n c r e a s e under h i g h degrees o f c o n f l i c t . Under such c o n d i t i o n s , the person t e n d s

t o w o r r y more about and f e e l more b o t h e r e d by v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s and e v e n t s i n h i s

work l i f e t h a n does one whose r o l e I n v o l v e s l e s s c o n f l i c t .

We a l s o f i n d , i n Table 3-2 £ and d t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t s tend t o reduce one's

g e n e r a l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h h i s j o b and the c o n d i t i o n s s u r r o u n d i n g i t , and t o

undermine one°s c o n f i d e n c e i n h i s s u p e r i o r s and i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole.

These d a t a a r e based on s t a n d a r d i z e d a t t i t u d e s c a l e s developed i n e a r l i e r industrial

r e s e a r c h by t h e Survey Research Center. The a t t i t u d e s t h e y r e f l e c t a r e I m p o r t a n t

 3-14

Table 3-2

E m o t i o n a l Consequences o f O b j e c t i v e Role C o n f l i c t
(from t h e , i n t e n s i v e study) »

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

Dependent V a r i a b l e High Low

£. I n t e n s i t y o f inner conflict 3.30 1.89

b. Job-related tensions 5.11 4.04 ^03

c_. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n 4.41 5.58 <<02

.d. Confidence i n o r g a n i z a t i o n 5.74 7.27 ^001

^ Number o f cases: (27) (26)

D e t a i l s o f o p e r a t i o n a l procedure f o r measuring r o l e c o n f l i c t and the emotion

v a r i a b l e s can be found i n Boxes 3 r l and 3-2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
2.
t e s t s w i t h 51 degrees o f freedom.
P-values based on o n e - t a i l e d "t"
 3-15

components o f employee morale, and have been shown under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s t o

have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on work performance, on absenteeism, and on s t a f f t u r n -
o v e r . I t i s c l e a r t h a t c h r o n i c c o n d i t i o n s o f c o n f l i c t i n one's work r o l e t e n d t o
be d e m o r a l i z i n g as w e l l as t e n s i o n p r o v o k i n g .

B u t t h e evidence f o r t h e - e m o t i o n a l c o s t s i n v o l v e d i n r o l e c o n f l i c t s goes w e l l

beyond t h e data presented i n Table 3-2, As s h a l l be shown i n l a t e r c h a p t e r s ,

more i n t e n s e and d e b i l i t a t i n g e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s are sometimes found. Some

people e x p e r i e n c e a r a t h e r marked sense o f f u t i l i t y when, c o n f r o n t e d w i t h c o n f l i c t .

A l o s s o f self-esteem i s o f t e n apparent. Others show 'symptoms o f acute a n x i e t y , a n d

o f c o n f u s i o n and i n d e c i s i o n , w h i c h may l e a v e them i m m o b i l i z e d f o r a t i m e . And

f o r . a few, symptoms o f psychosomatic d i s o r d e r s seem t o be connected' t o t h e t e n s i o n s

engendered by r o l e conflicts.

A more d e t a i l e d t r e a t m e n t o f these r e a c t i o n s t o c o n f l i c t w i l l be presented

i n subsequent c h a p t e r s . . For t h e p r e s e n t i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n c l u d e , t h a t r o l e

c o n f l i c t s t e n d t o be q u i t e s t r e s s f u l f o r those who face them, and a t t i m e s t h e

e m o t i o n a l s t r a i n reaches e x t r e m e l y s e r i o u s p r o p o r t i o n s .

I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s and Communication .* The impact o f r o l e conflicts

o n l y b e g i n s w i t h the e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o f the person as serious, as t h i s . m a y be.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t a l s o tend t o c a r r y over i n t o one's i n t e r -

personal l i f e . S o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o n e s work a s s o c i a t e s tend t o d e t e r i o r a t e

D

under t h e s t r e s s o f c o n f l i c t . I n p a r t , t h i s r e a c t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e person's

g e n e r a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e work s i t u a t i o n / A t t i t u d e s toward those role

senders who c r e a t e the c o n f l i c t become worse, j u s t as do those toward the j o b

and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n g e n e r a l .

I n s e r t Table 3-3 about here

The e v i d e n c e i n l i n e a_ o f T a b l e 3-3 should come as no s u r p r i s e . I f role

 3-16

Table 3-3

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Consequences o f O b j e c t i v e Role C o n f l i c t
( f r o m t h e i n t e n s i v e study)

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Bond High Low

ja. Mean t r u s t i n senders 4.46 5.83 <01

b. Mean r e s p e c t f o r senders 4.19 5.91 <£0Ol

£. Mean l i k i n g f o r senders 4.78 5.15 '4^05

Number o f cases: (27) (26)

1.
The dependent v a r i a b l e s a r e measured by t h e f o c a l person's responses t o
q u e s t i o n s C4, C7, and C9, r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i c h were asked about each o f t h e i r r o l e •
senders. C l u s t e r averages o f s c a l o r responses were c o n v e r t e d , v i a a l i n e a r t r a n s -
f o r m a t i o n , t o 8 - p o i n t c l u s t e r indexes.
 f

3-17

senders a r e Imposing c o n f l i c t i n g pressures on the f o c a l person, i t i s l i t t l e wonder

t h a t h i s t r u s t i n t h e i r c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s i s undermined. Ufider c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h

conflict t h e r e i s a p t t o be l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t o t h e r s a r e l o o k i n g out f o r one's

w e l f a r e — h e may w e l l doubt t h a t they would be w i l l i n g t o "go o u t o f t h e i r way"

t o h e l p him. But i n t h e extreme case t h i s m i s t r u s t may go w e l l beyond' the

r e a l i t y o f h i s associates' untrustworthiness. Something a k i n t o p a r a n o i d sus-

p i c i o u s n e s s may develop, i n w h i c h the person a t t r i b u t e s t o h i s a s s o c i a t e s more base

• . ••) " *
/ i n t e n t i o n s toward him t h a n t h e y i n f a c t h o l d . But , even s h o r t o f t h i s extreme
1

r e a c t i o n , i n the absence o f t r u s t i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t o n e , w i l l openly e l i c i t help

from h i s senders toward f i n d i n g a m u t u a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s o l u t i o n t o the c o n f l i c t .

Some, s u b s t a n t i a l degree o f m u t u a l t r u s t i s r e q u i r e d f o r f r e e and open communication

and f o r i n t e g r a t i v e problem s o l v i n g .

L i n e s - b and c, o f Table 3-3 g i v e s t i l l f u r t h e r reason t o doubt t h a t con-

s t r u c t i v e c o l l a b o r a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n w i l l be forthcoming, i n t h e face o f

strong; r o l e c o n f l i c t s . Not o n l y does the f o c a l person under c o n f l i c t t r u s t h i s

r o l e s e n d e r s l e s s , he a l s o l i k e s them l e s s w e l l p e r s o n a l l y and h o l d s them i n lower

esteem. He sees them as l e s s competent t e c h n i c a l l y and l e s s p l e a s a n t t o spend

time w i t h .

But t h e problem extends beyond the i n t e r n a l a f f e c t s and a t t i t u d e s o f the .

person i n t o h i s overt behavior.

1
As i s . s e e n i n T a b l e 3-4a., people communicate l e s s

w i t h t h e i r a s s o c i a t e s when unaer s t r o n g c o n f l i c t s t h a n when they are relatively

f r e e o f them. T h i s would be expected, c o n s i d e r i n g the weakening o f such

a f f e c t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds as t r u s t , r e s p e c t and a t t r a c t i o n . But t h e r e i s a l s o

a d i r e c t i n s t r u m e n t a l reason f o r t h i s c u r t a i l m e n t o f communication* Role pressures

are e x e r t e d , f o r the most p a r t , v i a o r a l communications from r o l e senders. When .

these i n d u c t i o n s prove s t r e s s f u l , as they do i n a. c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n , the s t r e s s

can be r e d u c e d by w i t h d r a w i n g from the i n d u c e r s , by a v o i d i n g i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h those

 V

3-18

who c r e a t e t h e c o n f l i c t .

I n s e r t Table 3-4 about here

The evasiveness o f t h e c o n f l i c t e d p e r s o n i s f u r t h e r demonstrated by l i n e t>

o f T a b l e 3-4. Those i n the h i g h c o n f l i c t c l u s t e r s a t t r i b u t e l e s s i n f l u e n c e t o

i

t h e i r r o l e senders t h a n do those who suffer l i t t l e conflict* In fact, this

response i s l a r g e l y a u t i s t i c . There i s l i t t l e reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t the

senders i n h i g h c o n f l i c t c l u s t e r s a r e a c t u a l l y l e s s p o w e r f u l ! n o r t h a t they a t t e m p t

to e x e r t less influence. Q u i t e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y are more concerned about

i n f l u e n c i n g , t h e f o c a l person t o change h i s performance o r p e r s o n a l s t y l e than are

those i n l e s s c o n f l i c t e d c l u s t e r s . Moreover, we have j u s t reviewed s u b s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t they do indeed have an impact on the f o c a l person,

though i t may n o t be t h e one they i n t e n d . While, t h e y may n o t g a i n c o n f o r m i t y t o

t h e i r w i s h e s , they g e t through ' t o him s u f f i c i e n t l y t o d i s r u p t h i s e m o t i o n a l

M 1

l i f e and t o e l i c i t f a i r l y s t r o n g d e f e n s i v e responses. A t t r i b u t i n g l e s s power t o

one's a s s o c i a t e s , d i s c o u n t i n g the importance o f t h e i r recommendations and

d i r e c t i v e s , i s a k i n d o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l w i t h d r a w a l w h i c h p a r a l l e l s .the s o c i a l

w i t h d r a w a l o f r e d u c t i o n i n communication.

B u t one may ..doubt whether e i t h e r o f these defenses, these e f f o r t s t o cope

w i t h ( o r r a t h e r , a v o i d ) c o n f l i c t , .is t r u l y e f f e c t i v e . I t seems'unlikely, i f a l l

^ t h i s i s t h e case, t h a t the person under c o n f l i c t w i l l seek but- t h e counsel and

c o o p e r a t i o n o f h i s f e l l o w s I n f i n d i n g s o l u t i o n s f o r h i s problems. I t i s even

l e s s l i k e l y t h a t he w i l l v o l u n t e e r h i s ' a i d i n w o r k i n g on t h e i r problems. In

the f i r s t i n s t a n c e t h i s a l l t o o common response .to c o n f l i c t - - t h e weakening o f

i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds and the c u r t a i l m e n t o f i n t e r a c t i o n - - i s a p t t o be self-

d e f e a t i n g f o r t h e person f a c i n g t h e c o n f l i c t . R e s o l u t i o n s a r e l e s s p r o b a b l e and

the c o n d i t i o n s f o r more s e r i o u s c o n f l i c t s a r e present,* We should e x p e c t t h i s

 3-19

Table 3-4

I n t e r a c t i o n a l Consequences o f O b j e c t i v e Role Conflicts

(from the i n t e n s i v e study)

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t ;

Interaction variable** High Low p

a. Mean frequency o f communication 3.96 5.70 ^^001

b. Mean i n f l u e n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o others 3.85 5.57 . <^*.001

Number o f cases: (27) (26)

1.
I n d i c a t i o n s o f ' i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e f o c a l
t a k e n f r o m h i s :responses t o q u e s t i o n s C2 and CI
about e a c h o f h i s senders. C l u s t e r ^averages o f
v i a a l i n e a r transformation, t o 8-point c l u s t e r
person and h i s r o l e senders a r e
r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i c h w e r e asked
s c a l o r responses were c o n v e r t e d ,
indexes.
 3-20

f i r s t because t h e u s u a l response o f r o l e senders t o a w i t h d r a w a l from t h e i r i n -

f l u e n c e e f f o r t s i s t o press t h e p o i n t harder- I f the f o c a l person doesn't seem
t o " h e a r " what he's b e i n g t o l d , perhaps t h e y have t o " s h o u t " a l l the louder--and
t o i n v o k e s t r o n g e r s a n c t i o n s . Second, s i n c e the u s u a l a f f e c t i v e bonds t e n d t o be
r e p l a c e d , w i t h i n t e r p e r s o n a l f r i c t i o n , new c o n f l i c t s around new i s s u e s a r e more
apt t o a r i s e .

The second r e s u l t , the r e d u c t i o n i n t h e person's c o o p e r a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n

toward o t h e r s , i s c o s t l y for- the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole as w e l l as f o r t h e more

immediate group. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t c o o r d i n a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r s w i t h i n t h e

c l u s t e r I s r e q u i r e d f o r m e e t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f .

t h e u n i t i s i m p a i r e d when r o l e c o n f l i c t s a r e p r e s e n t . And t h i s i s a l l t h e more

s e r i o u s inasmuch as i t . seems' l i k e l y t h a t c o n f l i c t s , v i a these common r e a c t i o n s

t o them; beget c o n f l i c t s - - t h e v i c i o u s c i r c l e tightens.

I n s e r t Figure:. 3-1 about here

Summary. Many o f these m a t t e r s w i l l be taken up more f u l l y i n subsequent

chapters. For t h e p r e s e n t , l e t us conclude by drawing a t t e n t i o n - o n c e a g a i n t o

t h e model presented i n Chapter 2 (see F i g u r e 3-1). Contradictory role

e x p e c t a t i o n s (Box I ) g i v e r i s e t o opposing r o l e pressures, i . e . , t o role, c o n f l i c t s

which g e n e r a l l y have t h e f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t s on t h e e m o t i o n a l experience (Box I I I )

o f t h e f o c a l person: i n t e n s i f i e d i n t e r n a l psychological c o n f l i c t s , increased

t e n s i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e j o b , reduced s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the

j o b a n d i t s v a r i o u s components, and decreased c o n f i d e n c e i n one°s s u p e r i o r s and

i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole (Arrow 1 ) .

The s t r a i n e x p e r i e n c e d by those i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s l e a d s t o v a r i o u s

coping responses--note b e i n g t a k e n here o f evidence f o r s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l

w i t h d r a w a l ( r e d u c t i o n i n communication and ^ a t t r i b u t e d i n f l u e n c e r e s p e c t i v e l y ) as
 ° 3-21

II. III. IV.

O's Role Role Pres P s Exper-
f
P's Re
Expect sures toward! ience: sponse:
71 a t i o n s P: degree tension withdrawal
for P of c o n f l i c t
etc etc.

Interpersonal
Relations:
t r u s t , respect
liking;
communication
influence.

F i g u r e 3-1. P a r t i a l Model o f Factors. I n v o l v e d i n Role C o n f l i c t :

(Reproduced i n p a r t from F i g u r e 2-2, Chapter 2.)

/
 3-22

two common k i n d s o f coping response. Other k i n d s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d l a t e r .

F i n a l l y , the presense o f c o n f l i c t i n one's r o l e tends, t o undermine h i s

r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s r o l e senders, t o produce weaker bonds o f t r u s t , r e s p e c t , and

a t t r a c t i o n (Arrow 9 ) . I t i s q u i t e clear t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t s are c o s t l y f o r t h e

p e r s o n i n b o t h h i s e m o t i o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l lives. They may a l s o be q u i t e

costly t o the organization w h i c h depends on e f f e c t i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n and

c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i n and between i t s s u b - u n i t s .
 CHAPTER 4

ROLE AMBIGUITY: PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

The Problem o f Role A m b i g u i t y

L i k e r o l e c o n f l i c t , r o l e a m b i g u i t y i s c o s t l y b o t h f o r the person and f o r t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t i n w h i c h he works. E f f i c i e n t goal-directed behavior Is

based on p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f f u t u r e e v e n t s . I n most s i t u a t i o n s , a person has o n l y

l i m i t e d c o n t r o l over f u t u r e outcomes i n w h i c h he may have a s u b s t a n t i a l interest.

To t h e e x t e n t t h a t he can a n t i c i p a t e r e a l i s t i c a l l y events beyond h i s c o n t r o l , he

can d i r e c t h i s b e h a v i o r toward p r o d u c i n g more r a t h e r t h a n l e s s f a v o r a b l e outcomes.

Three c o n d i t i o n s seem e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e k i n d and degree o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y we

have i n m i n d ; 1) The person must be a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e w i t h f a i r accuracy the

consequences o f h i s own a c t i o n s . I f he p e r f o r m s a c t A, how sure i s he t h a t

event B (a desired e f f e c t ) w i l l follow? And how c o n f i d e n t i s he t h a t X ( a n

unwanted e v e n t ) w i l l n o t be produced? He needs t o have usable knowledge about

means-ends c o n n e c t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s where he can produce t h e means o r w l t h o l d

themo 2) He needs t o be aware o f the d e t e r m i n a n t s o f r e l e v a n t events w h i c h he does

n o t p r o d u c e , and o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r occurence. 3) He must be a b l e t o

depend on t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a h o s t o f o t h e r s u r r o u n d i n g c o n d i t i o n s t h e " g r o u n d "

w h i c h makes " f i g u r e " o f t h e changing events he d e a l s w i t h d i r e c t l y * . For example.,

we a l l depend on t h e s t a b i l i t y o f s t a t i o n a r y o b j e c t s and on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f

the law o f g r a v i t y . T h i s c h a i r w i l l h o l d me j u s t as i t has i n t h e p a s t . The

p a n i c o f a n earth-quake i n p a r t grows o u t o f t h e f a i l u r e o f these e x p e c t a t i o n s we

t a k e so f o r g r a n t e d .

I n complex s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e degree o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y 5 while substantial,

i s substantially less. I n a d d i t i o n t o p h y s i c a l laws and e v e n t s , a v a r i e t y o f

s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s must remain c o n s t a n t I f people a r e t o behave

effectively. Words must m a i n t a i n t h e i r meanings; t h e r u l e s o f the game must remain

unchanged o r a t l e a s t i n t e l l i g i b l e . Changing them changes the w o r l d i t s e l f — t o our

 4-2

d e l i g h t when Lewis C a r r o l l l e t s A l i c e s l i p t h r o u g h the l o o k i n g g l a s s , o r t o o u r

t e r r o r when Kafka's metamorphosis c o n f r o n t s u s .

The p r o b l e m o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d f o r each person i n an

o r g a n i s a t i o n because he i s surrounded by o t h e r a c t o r s who a r e t r y i n g t o produce

changes w h i c h w i l l o p t i m i z e t h e i r own needs and p r e f e r e n c e s . They represent

sources o f change o v e r w h i c h t h e person has l i t t l e o r no c o n t r o l , and w h i c h he can

p r e d i c t o n l y i n t h e g r o s s e s t terms.

But t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y may l i e i n t h e person's i n a b i l i t y t o a n t i c i p a t e

c l e a r l y t h e consequences o f h i s own a c t s . Often h i s goals i n organizational life

a r e a t t a i n a b l e o n l y I f he can i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s t o a s s i s t him, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l

i n f l u e n c e can seldom be accomplished w i t h c e r t a i n t y . Moreover, e f f o r t s t o produce

d e s i r a b l e changes i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , even when s u c c e s s f u l , o f t e n produce u n a n t i c i p a t e d

secondary changes as w e l l e One i s seldom secure i n t h e knowledge t h a t h i s e f f o r t s

w i l l produce o n l y those e f f e c t s he d e s i r e s and e x p e c t s .

I n s h o r t , c l a r i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y a r e r e q u i r e d f o r e f f e c t i v e movement

t o w a r d g o a l s , and I n complex s o c i a l s y s t e m s — d e s p i t e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c emphasis

on a u t h o r i t y and r u l e — c l a r i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y a r e h a r d t o come by. When t h e

g o a l s f o r t h e person a r e s e t by t h e o b j e c t i v e s and r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

ambiguity may l i m i t h i s e f f e c t i v e n e s s and p r o d u c t i v i t y on t h e j o b , as w e l l as h i s

a b i l i t y t o coordinate w i t h others. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t h i s g o a l s stem from h i s own

needs and v a l u e s , a m b i g u i t y may be a m a j o r source o f f r u s t r a t i o n and a n x i e t y .

A m b i g u i t y t h u s poses a problem f o r b o t h t h e I n d i v i d u a l and t h e system.

The scope o f t h e problem.

Role a m b i g u i t y i s conceived as a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between

the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p e r s o n and t h a t w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d f o r adequate

performance o f h i s r o l e . On t h e s u b j e c t i v e l e v e l , i t i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between h i s

a c t u a l s t a t e o f knowledge and t h a t w h i c h would p r o v i d e adequate. s a t i s f a c t i o n o f h i s

 4-3

personal needs and values.

V i r t u a l l y none of us knows a l l t h a t we would l i k e to know about the conditions

surrounding our l i v e s . We never p r e d i c t w i t h absolute c e r t a i n t y how things w i l l

t u r n out. To some degree, ambiguity i s a f a c t of l i f e for everyone, a c o n d i t i o n

w i t h which we have become a l l too f a m i l i a r . Most of us, however, are able t o

f u n c t i o n reasonably w e l l i n our various roles i n s p i t e of the uncertainty.

To what extent, then, i s ambiguity a problem f o r general concern? Data

from the n a t i o n a l survey of the labor force Indicate t h a t i t i s a source of stress

f o r s u b s t a n t i a l numbers**:

— 3 5 % are disturbed by lack of c l a r i t y on the scope and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of

t h e i r jobs;

—29% aire bothered by ambiguity about what others around them expect of them;

— 3 8 % are distressed because they cannot get information required to perform

t h e i r jobs adequately.

A l l these people report some s i g n i f i c a n t stress because ambiguity interferes with

e f f e c t i v e task performance—other responses emphasize the personal costs of

ambiguityj

— 3 1 % are disturbed by lack of information about opportunities f o r advancement

i n the organization;

— 3 2 % are under tension because they are uncertain about t h e i r superior's

evaluations of them.

But these f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t only those cases i n which ambiguity reaches

admittedly s t r e s s f u l proportions. Other studies suggest t h a t lack of desired in^

formation i n organizations i s even more widespread. A r e p o r t of f a c t o r y workers i n

a heavy i n d u s t r y i s i l l u s t r a t i v e :

...only 9% ...reported t h a t they were kept very w e l l informed on what was

happening i n the company, yet 66% said they wanted such information and
64% s a i d t h a t other employees also wanted i t .
...only 10% ...knew where they stood w i t h t h e i r foremen and 45% said t h a t

U
Data are presented f o r wage and salary males only.
 4-4

much o f the time they d i d not know. Yet 76% wanted t h i s information and 67%
said t h a t others also wanted i t . (Kahn, 1350).

Other studies show comparable numbers who lack information about s i g n i f i c a n t

aspects o f t h e i r work s i t u a t i o n . Clearly, problems o f ambiguity i n the work

s i t u a t i o n are widespread and c o n s t i t u t e Important sources of stress f o r a great

many people i n the American labor force.

Sources o f Role Ambiguity.

The major o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s chapter i s an increased understanding of the

emotional and interpersonal consequences o f ambiguity. But t h a t understanding

w i l l be enhanced i f we consider b r i e f l y some o f i t s determinants, some of the

conditions under which i t a r i s e s and around which i t focuses. Three general

conditions are worthy o f note: 1) organizational complexity, 2) rapid organi-

z a t i o n a l change and 3) current managerial philosophies.

3

The complexity o f modern organizations. While the modern i n d u s t r i a l o r -

g a n i z a t i o n i s the c r e a t i o n o f the minds o f men, i t has grown i n size and complexity

to the p o i n t t h a t no single person can comprehend, a t a given moment, more than

a small b i t o f t h a t which i s t o be known about i t .

I n v e r y small operations, a manager might w e l l know a l l the employees

personally t h e i r peculiar strengths, habits, and l i m i t a t i o n s .

0 He may understand

the requirements o f each task and f u n c t i o n to be performed f o r organizational

effectiveness. With e f f o r t and I n t e l l i g e n c e , he may know f a i r l y w e l l "what's

going on" i n h i s organization, and other members can be equally w e l l informed.

But I n companies o f even a few hundred members, t h i s l e v e l o f continual close

f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h various aspects o f the organization i s v i r t u a l l y impossible. With

increased s i z e , the s t r u c t u r e o f the organization becomes much more complex. The

d i v i s i o n o f labor becomes more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and specialized; more l e v e l s o f

supervision are introduced t o maintain coordination and c o n t r o l , and more people

become involved i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l planning. Moreover, i n many I n d u s t r i e s , advanced

 4-5

technology adds t o the complexity; no s i n g l e person can be adequately trained i n a l l

the r e l e v a n t t e c h n i c a l areas* The mere f a c t t h a t size and complexity o f organizations
exceed the i n d i v i d u a l ' s span o f comprehension accounts f o r much o f the r o l e
ambiguity found today.

The r a t e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change. I f size and complexity even i n the steady

state pose major problems f o r comprehension, i t i s even more d i f f i c u l t t o maintain

an adequate understanding o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n during periods o f change. Yet r a p i d

change i s perhaps the dominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f our c u l t u r e .

Changes o f three kinds pervade American organizations and c o n t r i b u t e t o ambiguity.

F i r s t , there i s the f a c t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l growth. Many companies are increasing

i n size a t a rapid r a t e , and an almost e s s e n t i a l companion of.growth i s r e o r g a n i -

zation. Tendencies toward d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n represent, i n p a r t , an e f f o r t t o

c o n t r o l the confusion produced by rapid growth and increased complexity.

Second, changes i n technology require associated changes i n the s o c i a l structure

of organizations. New techniques f o r performing work are devised and introduced

continually. They o f t e n impose rearrangements o f and w i t h i n work groups.. New

techniques v i r t u a l l y always require r e v i s i o n s i n r o l e expectations toward those

employing them, r e v i s i o n s which o f t e n must be learned through a complicated process

of t e s t i n g and r e t e s t i n g . Some technological innovations, e.g., e l e c t r o n i c data

processing and operations research, are themselves Intended t o cope w i t h problems

of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l complexity and ambiguity created by other new technologies.

T h i r d , many organizations i n American Industry are characterized by frequent

personnel changes. Not only i s employee turnover a general problem, but frequent

t r a n s f e r s and reassignments w i t h i n organizations are common. The e a r l y weeks o f a

person's new assignment, during which he i s learning h i s r o l e , are fraught w i t h

ambiguity f o r him. Insofar as he performs the r o l e d i f f e r e n t l y from h i s predecessor

 4-6

and holds d i f f e r e n t expectations toward h i s associates, he also creates problems

of ambiguity f o r them. Unfortunately f o r the s o l u t i o n of such problems, i n some

companies i t i s rare f o r a person and a l l h i s r o l e senders to remain as an i n t a c t

r o l e set f o r more than a few weeks or months a t a time. Changes i n the personnel

o f nearly every set are s u f f i c i e n t l y common t o be the expected r u l e rather than the

exception. Such changes c o n s t i t u t e a major source of r o l e ambiguity.

Because interdependence i s such a dominant feature of organizations, changes

of the k i n d s discussed above become even more problematic. A change i n any one

p a r t o f the system creates changes i n other p a r t s as w e l l . When changes are

c o n t i n u a l l y introduced i n various parts of the organization, the t o t a l system may

be i n a s t a t e of constant f l u x .

Because they are "open" systems, changes i n organizations may stem from changes

i n the environment. The problem of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the environment i s i l l u s t r a t e d

by the growing numbers of s t a f f p o s i t i o n s i n large organizations charged w i t h the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of long-range f o r e c a s t i n g , an uncertain a r t a t best. Changes i n

markets, i n sources of supply, i n f i n a n c i n g , and the l i k e , must be responded t o

w i t h appropriate i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l changes. For many organizations i n t e r n a l

interdependence, v u l n e r a b i l i t y to outside Influence, and r a p i d l y accelerating

environmental change make a combined assault on the s t a b i l i t y which i s the strength

o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l process. Substantial degrees of ambiguity i n many parts of the

o r g a n i z a t i o n are almost I n e v i t a b l y the outcome.

Managerial philosophy and ambiguity. Role ambiguity i s o f t e n the unintended

consequence of f a c t o r s , such as those discussed above, which are l a r g e l y beyond

the c o n t r o l of any o r g a n i z a t i o n a l member. I t may also r e s u l t from practices

and procedures which members develop and p e r s i s t i n q u i t e i n t e n t i o n a l l y . We have

described ambiguity as growing out of problems i n generating adequate and

dependable Information about Issues which concern people I n organizations. In

 4-7

complex s i t u a t i o n s undergoing rapid change, such information i s hard t o come by.

But even when a r e l a t i v e l y clear perspective can be generated—when the required

i n f o r m a t i o n has been d e v e l o p e d — i t i s seldom dispersed t o a l l those who f e e l a

need f o r i t . I n f a c t , most organizations have rather r e s t r i c t e d channels o f

communlca t ion.

I n p a r t , the r e s t r i c t e d flow o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s unintended. Members i n key

p o s i t i o n s are o f t e n i n s e n s i t i v e t o the extent t o which others would l i k e t o share

i n f o r m a t i o n they possess. They may be unbelieving or merely unaware t h a t sharing

i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h others would be h e l p f u l t o them and perhaps t o the whole

organization. Through i n e r t i a , through lack o f consideration, and through lack

of awareness, the organizational word o f t e n does not "get around."

But w h i l e t h i s i s too o f t e n t r u e , i t i s only p a r t of the t r u t h . The blockage

of communication i s o f t e n over-determined. The a t t i t u d e s and working assumptions

of members—of executives and supervisors as w e l l as rank and f i l e — c o n t r i b u t e t o

f a i l u r e o f information spread i n several ways*

Herman Wouk i n The Caine Mutiny described one organization i n terms which

have been echoed by members o f many: "The navy was designed by geniuses to be run

by i d i o t s * 1 1
A more f l a t t e r i n g statement o f t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n would assert

t h a t , w h i l e the organization as a whole must be coordinated w i t h i n the framework o f

a r a t i o n a l o v e r a l l design, each member need not understand t h a t design. As long

as each man performs h i s own r o l e and abides by the regulations, the system w i l l

run i t s e l f . A l l that i s required of i n d i v i d u a l members (save, perhaps, f o r top

managers) i s t h a t they know the general rules and t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I f

they have the information required f o r performing t h e i r own jobs, the r e s t i s none

of t h e i r business. I n deciding whether or not to. pass on c e r t a i n information, the

question, according t o t h i s set o f assumptions, i s not whether the other person

would l i k e t o know, but does he need t o know i n order t o get h i s job done. Logical
 4-8

requirements are acknowledged; psychological requirements are denied.

Generally speaking, t h i s i s not an impossible set o f assumptions. Many a

system comes near t o running i t s e l f on t h i s basis. Members do muddle through

without knowing "where they f i t i n the i n f i n i t e scheme o f things." At times o f

c r u c i a l d e c i s i o n every o r g a n i z a t i o n has i t s w e l l guarded secrets. I n fact,

c r u c i a l decisions i n h i e r a r c h i c a l organizations are almost always made behind

closed doors, supposedly t o c o n t r o l the spread o f rumors (which spread f a s t e s t

when Important doors are closed) and t o increase the l i k e l i h o o d of successful

implementation once the decision i s made. There are many arguments f o r the

r e s t r i c t i o n and c o n t r o l o f information, i n c l u d i n g the time and e f f o r t required t o

keep everyone w e l l informed. Persistent research f i n d i n g s which l i n k completeness

of communication t o organization effectiveness have yet t o overcome them.

Let us consider j u s t one other dynamic which l i m i t s free and open sharing o f

i n f o r m a t i o n i n organizations. Control over the behavior o f members i s the

essence o f s o c i a l organizations. Each member i s charged w i t h c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

and i s subject t o sanctions i f he f a i l s t o carry them out properly. Each member

I s vulnerable. He must use sound Judgment, make wise decisions, and act w i t h s k i l l

and d i s p a t c h — o r a t l e a s t appear t o .

Therefore, each member I s motivated to have a t hand a l l the Information

relevant t o h i s decisions and a c t i o n s , Including t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n by others. But

he I s l e s s vulnerable i f others do not also have t h a t information. His decisions

cannot be challenged I f no one else has an adequate basis f o r judging them. Each

person, t h e r e f o r e , has s u b s t a n t i a l reason f o r wanting t o be b e t t e r informed than

anyone e l s e on matters a f f e c t i n g h i s work. I f one wants t o c o n t r o l the behavior

o f others but be master o f h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a t e , he i s tempted t o arrange f o r

complete and undistorted information flowing to himself, b u t t o f i l t e r and c o n t r o l

the i n f o r m a t i o n flowing t o others.

 4-9

Such manipulation o f information flow threatens the basis f o r sound decisions

and cannot be used on a wide scale without d i r e consequences. I n the extreme i t

i s bound t o be s e l f - d e f e a t i n g , and has few p u b l i c defenders. Nevertheless many

people a t a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l levels p r a c t i c e i t r e g u l a r l y and e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y .

As we s h a l l see i n a subsequent chapter, r e s t r i c t i o n o f information i s one o f the

few techniques a v a i l a b l e t o subordinates f o r i n f l u e n c i n g superiors, and they so

use i t . Supervisors use i t t o influence subordinates even more frequently.

The Ambiguity Experience and I t s Emotional Consequences.

As we have seen, there are many f a c t o r s producing ambiguity i n organizations--

many reasons why something more than a t h i r d o f the American labor force i s

disturbed by the lack of information which i s required e i t h e r f o r : t h e performance

of t h e i r jobs or f o r the attainment o f t h e i r personal goals. Ambiguity, f o r

many o f them, i s determined by several f a c t o r s I n combination and i t s costs paid

i n many places. L e t us consider f i r s t the costs o f ambiguity i n the work r o l e . As

i n the a n a l y s i s o f c o n f l i c t , we w i l l begin w i t h some i l l u s t r a t i v e case m a t e r i a l :

Case 4200; The case of Nighter, a general foreman on the evening s h i f t i n an

assembly p l a n t , was discussed b r i e f l y i n Chapter 3. I n addition to a rather

difficult c o n f l i c t stemming from opposing demands from h i s supervisor and h i s

counterpart on the day s h i f t , he i s a t times v i r t u a l l y overcome w i t h ambiguity.

Some sources o f h i s ambiguity are i d e n t i f i e d i n the f o l l o w i n g exchange:

Q: "How long have you been General Foreman?"

A: " W e l l , : I was a foreman f o r a year-and-a-half and then I was general

foreman f o r a year-and«*a-half, two years, I guess; then I was
superintendent f o r about f i v e years, and now I'm general foreman again
f o r about two years."

Q: "You came down t o t h i s p l a n t as general foreman?"

A: "No. I was superintendent here when we f i r s t opened up, see? Then they
wanted t o s h i f t everybody around because they were not s a t i s f i e d w i t h the
way things were running, so..."
 4-10

Q: "How do you f e e l about a l l t h i s s h i f t i n g up and down?

11

A: " W e l l , there's a l o t o f confusion* You get used t o the p o l i c i e s o f one

man and how he operates and before you know i t he's gone and you get
somebody else and there i s a l l t h i s s h i f t i n g around. I t f i n a l l y gets
t o the point where production loses complete c o n t r o l o f the area and I t ' s
a l l r u n from the f r o n t end up here and some o f them don't even know what
a block I s . I'm serious about I t . Maybe somebody thinks i t ' s a good
p o l i c y , I don't know, b u t nothing has been solved* The conditions t h a t
e x i s t e d out there, I t h i n k they're worse today than they were before,
when there was a stable supervisory force out there. I don't know. They
seem t o want to keep the supervisors i n a t u r m o i l a l l the time*' 1

And •'turmoil" p r e t t y w e l l characterizes h i s experience. He goes on, describing a

combination o f c o n f l l c t f u l and ambiguous circumstances:

• •••"Well, what was happening there was t h a t you'd come I n i n the morning
and you'd s t a r t going through your d i v i s i o n out there". You probably would
g e t i n here about 6:30 and about a quarter t o eight or eight f i f t e e n we'd
have a meeting up f r o n t which would l a s t about two hours* You'd go back
t o the department and s t a r t t o go t o another department and before you
knew i t you got another c a l l because you had another meeting t o go t o some
place. You might be three hours there and then you got another s t a r t and
something else would take you away from the job—somebody from Planning
would come i n , or somebody from Budget—then a t night about f i v e o'clock
we'd have another meeting u n t i l about 7:30 and they would want t o know
what the h e l l happened i n the department* Why, h e l l , you haven't spent
enough time out there t o know exactly what the h e l l has taken place* You
might be i n the plant 12 hours a day, but you might be I n the department
about 2% hours because o f a l l the meetings they had around here. So when
you couldn't spend any time going out and t a l k i n g w i t h your supervisors
and g e t t i n g your general foreman around t o f i n d out j u s t what the problems
were, w e l l , you d i d n ' t know your j o b . So you can't go.to meetings f o r
s i x t o e i g h t hours a day and expect t o know what the h e l l I s going on out
on the f l o o r , , and be able t o run i t . "

Under .such pressures Nighter s tension and anxiety f i n a l l y gave way t o r e s i g n a t i o n ,

fl

w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l loss o f self-esteem:

Q: "Are things worse i n t h i s plant than I n any o f the other plants?"

A: "Things are worse i n t h i s plant than in.any other place I've ever known."

Q: "How BO?"

A: " W e l l , the constant shake-ups around here."

Q: "Do they ever give you any explanation of why they do that?"

A: " W e l l , I d i d n ' t need an explanation f o r t h a t . When they made a switch i n

personnel around here, w e l l , the f i r s t t h i n g they t o l d me was t h a t they
would l i k e me t o give u p — i t was brought about i n a roundabout w a y — t o
g i v e up the superintendent's job* So I f i g u r e d , w e l l , h e l l I wasn't
 4-11

going to do i t j u s t because somebody was t e l l i n g me to without my a c t u a l l y

recognizing why. You know, they a c t u a l l y didn't have the power or 1

anything. I t f i n a l l y got so bad that I figured i t wasn't worth i t — h e a l t h

and.everything e l s e - - I was g e t t i n g nervous. Normally I'm relaxed i n the
t h i n g s I do. I t r y to t h i n k things out. I figured the job wasn't worth
the money so I t o l d them they could have the superintendent's job and i f
they wanted me as a general foreman around here I'd be glad to serve i n
t h a t capacity and i f I could help them--I knew that they were short on
t h e afternoon s h i f t - - I t o l d them I'd be glad t o go on afternoons t o help
them out and I t o l d them I would do whatever they wanted me t o do."

Q: "Did they ever e x p l a i n what they thought i t was that you were doing wrong?"

A: "No. They j u s t said that I d i d n ' t know how to handle the job which I had
handled f o r f i v e years."

Apathy and f e e l i n g s of f u t i l i t y , accompany h i s r e s i g n a t i o n :

Q: " I t must be p r e t t y damn hard on a guy though t o get promoted and demoted--
back and f o r t h a l l the time? I s i t k i n d of hard on you?"

A: "Well, i t doesn't do you any good. I know I used to spend a l o t of time

on things l i k e q u a l i t y c o n t r o l , labor r e l a t i o n s , and read books on how
c o n t r a c t s should be w r i t t e n out, i n t e r p r e t contracts and s t u f f l i k e t h a t .
W e l l , on top of t h a t you'd be i n and out o f here and you were spending
something l i k e twelve hours a day i n the p l a n t . Coming i n on Saturdays
on your own time checking up and s t u f f l i k e that. Well, they change things
and they assume a l o t of t h i n g s , so we t r y i t . t h e i r way. I t ' s been hard.
L i k e I say while I was keeping myself primed on items l i k e t h a t , I don't
any more. I'm being f a i r about i t . I don't bother any more."

Q: "How clear are you about what the people around you expect o f you?"

A: "Well, as f a r as what they expect from me, there's never been an a c t u a l

discussion of i t . No one has ever a c t u a l l y t o l d me what they expect o f me.
I go out and do the best that I can the best way I know how."

Q; "But you don't always know what they..."

A: " I don't always know what they t h i n k o f i t . "

Q: " I s there any p a r t i c u l a r p a r t of your job where you are not c l e a r about
what people expect."

A: "Well, a guy l i k e s t o know where he stands i n a group, what h i s f u t u r e

might hold f o r him, somebody to have a heart t o heart t a l k t o say what's
wrong and not wait u n t i l the l a s t minute and then keep harping about
something that you have no c o n t r o l over. I say I l i k e to know where I
stand. I would l i k e to have somebody t e l l me which way I'm headed and i f
I'm going about i t the wrong way, I would l i k e f o r them t o t e l l me. I'd
l i k e t o please somebody rather than displease and be kept i n the dark.
That's the way everybody i s around here. Nobody knows where the h e l l
they stand."

The pathos i n Nighter's words r e f l e c t , the s t r a i n of a person bound i n t o a

 4-12
i. •

s i t u a t i o n he can neither c o n t r o l nor understand. Much as he would l i k e t o "do

r i g h t " by the organization, .he doesn't;.know i n h i s present s i t u a t i o n what "doing

r i g h t " means. Moreover, he learns only i n d i r e c t l y that he has f a i l e d ; h i s job i s

1

taljien' away without explanation, or a t l e a s t w i t h o u t one t h a t he can understand and

accept. I t i s perhaps understandable that h i s feelings of helpfulness and futility

are expressed w i t h a touch of b i t t e r n e s s . Ambiguity permeates h i s r o l e and he

finds i t s t r e s s f u l indeed.

Case 4400. Another supervisor i n a manufacturing plant i s even more b i t t e r

about the' ambiguity i n h i s r o l e . Malntainer (a general foreman i n the maintenance

department).was transferred t o the evening s h i f t without warning or explanation.

This i s how he describes that episode;

"They don't t e l l you when they move you. Are you doing a bum j o b , or
a good job? They don't ask you; they don't t e l l you nothing. You are i n
the dark. Now, what d i d I do wrong, that i s a l l you t h i n k o f .

"Well, , i f they came around and said, 'Joe, I got a job here I want t o
put you on f o r a w h i l e . We're having a l o t o f t r o u b l e . ' Well, I w i l l go i n
and d i g i n . They don't do t h a t . They say, 'You s t a r t over here.' That's i t .

"Am I doing a good job? What's the matter w i t h the other guy, why d i d
they take him out? They don't t e l l you nothing. They don't ask any
questions. They don't t e l l you what the h e l l i s up.

"The way t h a t I was t o l d about going on the second s h i f t was a guy t h a t

I don't work for, a guy t h a t I don't know a t a l l , some stranger, he came over
and says, 'Hey, I hear you got to go on second s h i f t . ' Well, Mr. H. j u s t made
out a chart and put me on second s h i f t . I guess someone seen the chart and
my name was on the chart."

Q: "Who came down and t o l d you o f f i c i a l l y that you were on second s h i f t ? "

"Well, the manager's a s s i s t a n t came over and says, 'Hey, d i d n ' t anyone
e v e r . t a l k t o you about the second s h i f t ? I says, 'Hell, ho, I hope I don't
1

have t o go on second s h i f t . ' 'Well,' he says, ' I guess you have t o . . They
got you on the l i s t , on that sheet up t h e r e . He showed me the .sheet'* So
1

there I was."

Q: "Well, do you t h i n k you w i l l ever f i n d out why a l l t h i s happened?"

" I probably won't."

Q: "Do you t h i n k i f you went up.to the f r o n t o f f i c e they would t e l l you?"

"They would probably give me a s i l l y answer. That's the way this damn place
operates.
 4-13

I n f r u s t r a t i o n and b i t t e r n e s s , Maintainer's voice cracked several times during

the above exchange. While he i s generally c l e a r about h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and

f e e l s t e c h n i c a l l y q u a l i f i e d to carry them out, he i s under-staffed and under a

great deal of pressure.. Moreover, he. feels t h a t h i s superiors don't appreciate the

d i f f i c u l t y o f maintaining a complex semi-automated assembly l i n e .

Q: "What parts o f your work do you f i n d most s t r e s s f u l ? "

A: "Well, l i k e I say, I t i s people g i v i n g orders and nobody knows what the

h e l l they want you to do. Like when I was on days, when a machine would
break down, there would be about 15 white c o l l a r s there and they a l l .
stand there popping questions. 'How long before i t w i l l be done? How
long w i l l i t take you? You didn't know what the h e l l was the matter
1

w i t h the machine because you couldn't get near' the goddamn thing."

And i n another part o f the i n t e r v i e w :

Q: "How o f t e n are you bothered .by f e e l i n g you won't be able to s a t i s f y the

c o n f l i c t i n g demands o f your superiors?"

A: "Well, when you don't get no support from d i f f e r e n t people, w e l l ,

sometimes you say, 'What.the h e l l i s the use.' I : do the best I can
and that's t h a t . " ,

Q: " I suppose that bothers you quite a b i t ? "

A: "Yen, i t bothers you a l l the, time. When you are t r y i n g to do a job., and
you've been doing' i t r i g h t and doing a good job a l l along and somebody
comes along and says you a i n ' t doing a good job and won't give you an
answer why or what f o r , then you .begin to wonder. Nobody t e l l s you. You
go and ask and they shrug t h e i r shoulders. They give you a cold shoulder.

As d i s g r u n t l e d as Maintainer i s , one wonders why he doesn't leave the organi-

zation. But, through- past pay increases and, the pension plan he i s bound i n t o the

system. A move would be too c o s t l y f o r him a t t h i s stage i n h i s career. He also

has a strong personal investment i n the organization, which remains i n spite o f

recent reverses;

Q: "What about your present plans? Are you t h i n k i n g o f making a change i n

j o b s i n the f u t u r e ? "

A: "Oh, the way i t i s going now,, anything i s welcome."

Q: "Are you t h i n k i n g about looking f o r another job?"

 4-14

A: "No, - I got so much time i n here, and I t h i n k t h a t I've done my duty. As

f a r as I'm concerned, I'm s t i l l t r y i n g to do my duty. I'm s a t i s f i e d w i t h
working f o r the corporation and I've got a l i t t l e . i n v e s t m e n t o f myself i n
here. I'd l i k e t o f o l l o w i t through. I wouldn't l i k e t o switch jobs now."

Eut, perserverenace and " s t i f f upper l i p " notwithstanding, Maintainer i s

suffering substantial strain. The ambiguity and apparent capriciousness of h i s work

environment almost have him down:

" I f you know the reason f o r i t , i t would be a l l r i g h t . I f they would

g i v e you some actual f a c t s , i t wouldn't h u r t a guy so much. I f your
supervisors would come over and t a l k w i t h you, there i s usually a
s o l u t i o n no matter how b i g the problem or how small. But these guys
don't even t a l k i t over w i t h you."

Q: " I t seems that a l l you have been t r y i n g t o do i s f i n d out what the story
is?"

A: "That's r i g h t . I don't t h i n k anyone should have t o work i n the dark.

Would you l i k e to? I j u s t want a square deal. Why, i f I can get a
square deal and some decent answers, I ' l l be s a t i s f i e d . But you don't
g e t t h a t here.

"Now, I'm not t r y i n g t o get revenge or nothing l i k e that. I j u s t want

working conditions. I want something t o be happy about.. I come to t h a t
door and say, 'Goddamn, I got t o come i n t o t h i s damn place again.' That
i s the way you f e e l . (His voice breaks). No kidding. And I'm not-the
o n l y one. This i s throughout. Everyone f e e l s the same."

Maintainer's l a s t statement i s exaggerated, b u t they are not the remarks o f a

single d i s g r u n t l e d worker. I n t h i s plant s i m i l a r s t o r i e s were t o l d by numerous

others.

By no means i s uncertainty a problem known only t o people i n the lower

l e v e l s o f supervision. In' f a c t , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems o f ambiguity are

reported a t higher than at the lower status l e v e l s , ( p ^ . 0 5 ) . The f o l l o w i n g case

is illustrative:

Case 1400. Executive i s a d i v i s i o n manager i n a s t a f f department i n a large

corporation. He must deal w i t h many ambiguities, some of which are generated

i n t e n t i o n a l l y by h i s superior. I n h i s words:

"We have an organization chart and we have people assigned t o c e r t a i n

j o b s , but there i s no .sharp d i s t i n c t i o n as t o who i s t o do what. There
I s c n i t e a b i t o f l a t i t u d e b u i l t i n t o the jobs w i t h the idea o f
 4-15

enabling people to take on more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i f they are capable of

doing so.,.. ,Now the simplest way t o be organized to get work performance,
t o get a job done, i s to have work assignments such t h a t everyone knows
p r e c i s e l y what he I s supposed t o do and whenever a piece o f paper comes
i n , you automatically switch t h a t i n t o the c o r r e c t channels t o where I t i s
supposed to have a c t i o n on i t . And you can be confident.that i t w i l l ",'
happen i n a competent manner. I k i n d o f lean i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , but my
superior l i k e s the other k i n d b e t t e r , leaving i t nebulous. 11

This lack o f c l a r i t y i n job assignments creates major d e c i s i o n a l problems f o r

Executive:

Q: " I n view of your desire to c l a r i f y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , I wonder how you

r e a c t t o the present state of f l u x " o r t o the lack of form I n your present
set-up?"
A: " I f i n d myself spending an awful l o t o f time t r y i n g t o decide j u s t who
should do a c e r t a i n j o b . Whether i t should be us or (various other
d i v i s i o n s ) w i t h i n our own department, whether i t should be the c o n t r o l l e r s
. d i v i s i o n or the programmers d i v i s i o n or. the operations d i v i s i o n or- analysis
d i v i s i o n — j u s t where i t should be channelled. I think t h i s i s a great
waste of time...quite a personal k i n d of waste. . I hate t h i s kind o f waste.
T h i s bothers me quite a b i t . I've had several arguments w i t h (my supervisor)
about t h i s and he says that you don't have to define these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . .
He says he spends h a l f h i s time t r y i n g to define what h i s department
• should be doing,"

"This u n c e r t a i n t y . . . I j u s t . t h i n k t h a t i t i s fundamentally unsound t o

spend a l o t of time j u s t deciding who should do,a j o b . I t h i n k there i s
g r e a t e r reason t o have c l e a r l y defined organizational s t r u c t u r e s , and t r y
t o get good men who can be assigned to these jobs p r e t t y r e g u l a r l y . "

Two a d d i t i o n a l factors complicate, the s i t u a t i o n - . F i r s t , Executive i s r e l a t i v e l y

new i n h i s j o b . Because i t I s a very complex, h i g h - l e v e l s t a f f assignment

r e q u i r i n g both supervision o f h i s own d i v i s i o n s t a f f and a great deal of coordination

w i t h other parts of the organization, he i s s t i l l learning the ropes. Second, h i s

d i v i s i o n i s short o f man-power and the c u r r e n t overload i s s t r e s s f u l f o r everyone.

Executive's own intolerance f o r ambiguity, h i n t e d a t i n h i s e a r l i e r statements, i s

now clear:

"One thing t h a t has been very important f o r me, and I t h i n k important f o r

o t h e r managers, i s to p r o t e c t themselves against the.unseen. This becomes
a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t j o b , because what i t means i s keeping current
on your work. I t ' s been k i l l i n g me f o r years. I t r y ^ t o keep up to date,
and I have t h a t stack of s t u f f that I haven't even read'yet. That worries
me because I know that there i s going to be some b i g p r o j e c t that
someone i s going to c a l l and say that f i f t e e n minutes from now you are
 4-16

supposed to be a t a meeting. I t ' s going to be on such and such a subject

w i t h which I'am not f a m i l i a r . T h i s . i s quite f r u s t r a t i n g . "

Behind the ambiguity l u r k s a host o f p o t e n t i a l l y threatening events. He feels

t h a t the ambiguity i s apt to get worse before i t gets b e t t e r :

Q: " W e l l , can you see your way out of t h i s ? "

A: "My aim i s to get the man-power we need, and keep f i g h t i n g f o r more i f

we need more. Since we are so grossly understaffed a t the present time,
any additions w i l l be an Improvement. I n the i n i t i a l stages things w i l l
be more fouled up than they are now because every time somebody new comes
i n , they are not f a m i l i a r w i t h the procedures. You have to go through a
period o f t r a i n i n g , c r o s s - t r a i n i n g i n d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s and d i f f e r e n t
groups. You have t o make sure he understands that c e r t a i n things he i s
n o t supposed t o do and c e r t a i n things he i s supposed to do. You run i n t o
c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t s . So i n the i n i t i a l stages i t w i l l probably be more
confused .than i t i s now. Eventually, maybe s i x months or so when we get
f u l l y s t a f f e d , we w i l l be running smoothly."

But the a n t i c i p a t i o n o f adding new s t a f f members has both p o s i t i v e and

negative aspects. While i t o f f e r s r e s o l u t i o n to h i s current problems, Executive

also f i n d s i t somewhat threatening. He expresses w e l l the dilemma which confronts

him:

Q: " I was wondering how the uncertainty a f f e c t s you?"

A: " I guess you might say that the uncertainty bothers me because you are
going to have to meet people coming i n . . . There i s going to be more
competition coming—better q u a l i f i e d people, and r e a l sharp heads. This
i s b e t t e r f o r the company, no doubt, b u t . . . t h i s means that you are going
to have to work a l o t harder. Since you've been working hard a l l along,
you wonder i f you are r e a l l y adequate for. the j o b . This bothers me.

"You have t o believe i n i t i f you b e l i e v e i n the competitive system. . You

j u s t can't deny the l o g i c of i t . You have to have i t , but i t does create
tensions. I t h i n k that i t creates more tensions i n the i n i t i a l stages
when you are f i r s t t r y i n g to i n t e g r a t e these people I n t o the organization.
When you get t o know them, they are not the ogres that you expect they
might have been. They are decent human beings and they have t h e i r
weaknesses and strong points j u s t l i k e anyone else. I t ' s the. unknowns
t h a t create some tensions. I t ' s the fear o f the-unknown that creates
some tension."

Q: " T h i s probably makes you doubt your adequacy?"

A: "Yeah. The idea, o f course, i s t o always h i r e someone who i s b e t t e r than

you are. This gives you heart a t t a c k s eventually. This puts an awful l o t
o f pressure on you... I f you have reached the l i m i t of your c a p a b i l i t i e s ,
i t can have serious consequences, both physically and mentally.!'
 4-17

Q: "What might these be, do you think?"

A: "Constant tension which can cause a l l sorts o f physical complaints, and

undoubtedly mental complaints, too. I don't know what i s e x a c t l y the
b e s t way t o go about r e l i e v i n g t h i s type o f t h i n g * "

Executive comes back a t another point i n the i n t e r v i e w suggesting ways i n which

ambiguity can undermine self-confidence^

" I t h i n k I t i s important t o be recognized f o r the j o b that you do. And

i f t h i s i s n ' t given a t a reasonable time a f t e r the job, I t h i n k you
become a l i t t l e doubtful about what other people t h i n k o f you... I am
q u i t e uncertain as t o how (my superior) w i l l react t o what I am doing
because I don't have a good p i c t u r e o f what h i s standards are."

He i s even a l i t t l e a f r a i d t o r e p o r t t o h i s superior h i s evaluations o f others

because they may c o n f l i c t w i t h these standards. He goes on:

"I'm j u s t a l i t t l e uncertain whether my own judgment i s as good as I

t h i n k i t i s . I'm i n a p o s i t i o n now where my own judgment i s questioned
a l o t more than I t has been I n the past. This makes me wonder how
r e l i a b l e I think i t i s . "

I n sum, Executive faces many kinds o f ambiguity i n h i s job--ambiguity about

the scope and l i m i t s o f h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , about the future growth o f the

department, about what others expect o f him, about how he i s evaluated by h i s

superiors, and even about h i s own competence i n the j o b . D i v e r s i t y i s also evident

i n h i s r e a c t i o n s t o a m b i g u i t y — f e a r , worry, emotional tension, somatic disturbances,

and loss o f self-confidence. I n s p i t e o f the high status l e v e l he has been able

to achieve, i n s p i t e of h i s m a t e r i a l success, h i s l o t i s unhappy and h i s s u f f e r i n g s

acute.

Some conclusions on the nature o f r o l e ambiguity. These three cases give ample

i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the v a r i e t y o f forms r o l e ambiguity can take. Various aspects o f

the r o l e and o f the s i t u a t i o n surrounding i t may be ambiguous. The person may be

uncertain about the scope o f h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , about what i s expected o f him

by others around him, about what behaviors w i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n accomplishing h i s

assigned t a s k s . The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l structure may be ambiguous--he may be unclear

:
 4-18

about who has a l e g i t i m a t e r i g h t t o influence him or about the l i m i t s o f h i s

•. •

a u t h o r i t y over others. Confusion may center around organizational r u l e s and

r e g u l a t i o n s , around conditions under which various sanctions might be applied, or

around what the sanctions might be. ambiguity about how one i s evaluated by h i s

associates, about how s a t i s f i e d they are w i t h h i s behavior, seems t o be a

common problem. Or the uncertainty may center around j o b - s e c u r i t y or o p p o r t u n i t i e s

for advancement or rewards.

Each o f the persons .quoted above suffers- from several areas o f ambiguity

concurrently. I t i s important to d i s t i n g u i s h ambiguity i n those aspects of the

s i t u a t i o n which are relevant t o personal s a t i s f a c t i o n and t o the g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f

personal needs (the socio-emotional aspects o f the r o l e ) , as w e l l as ambiguity i n

those aspects which are relevant t o task performance. Lack, of structure i n

these two areas can be expected t o have some s i m i l a r consequences, but they w i l l

have d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s as w e l l .

There are almost as many kinds o f emotional r e a c t i o n t o ambiguity as there

are f o c i o f ambiguity. Tension, anxiety, and fear are common concomitants o f

u n c e r t a i n t y , but one also finds anger and h o s t i l i t y . I n two of the above cases the;

i s strong evidence of feelings o f f u t i l i t y and apathy; people do not f e e l t h a t they

can do much about t h e i r s i t u a t i o n s and they are no longer very motivated t o t r y .

I n a l l three cases, loss o f self-confidence and self-esteem are evident.

But t h e r e i s another p o i n t t o be taken from these cases. While ambiguity i s

s t r e s s f u l I n I t s own r i g h t , the s t r a i n i s even greater when the capriciousness o f

the environment has been demonstrated i n past experience. Both Nighter and

Maintalner are b i t t e r about abrupt and unwanted transfers and f o r them, ambiguity

has taken on a new meaning. When one has been ;burned i n the past, he has

a d d i t i o n a l reason t o fear a f i r e behind the smoke of ambiguity. I n short, an

unknown w o r l d becomes a p o t e n t i a l l y h o s t i l e and dangerous world. The consequences

of l i v i n g i n i t can be s h a t t e r i n g .
 4-19

The case m a t e r i a l , while i t provides a dramatic p o r t r a y a l of the problem o f

ambiguity, must be treated as a source o f hypotheses, not as a t e s t of them.

Q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l evidence f o r some o f the conclusions drawn above i s

a v a i l a b l e from the intensive study, (A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the measurement of

experienced ambiguity i s presented as appendix m a t e r i a l ) , Unlike .the treatment o f

r o l e c o n f l i c t , a comprehensive e f f o r t a t measuring the degree of objective

ambiguity i n the r o l e was not undertaken i n e i t h e r of the c u r r e n t studies. The

analysis which follows deals w i t h the consequences o f the ambiguity experience,

i.e., w i t h perceptual u n c l a r i t i e s and f e e l i n g s o f u n c e r t a i n t y .

I n s e r t Table 4-1 about here

Table 4-1 presents the c o r r e l a t i o n s between three measures of experienced

ambiguity, on the one hand, and four measures o f emotional s t r a i n , on the other.

Column l j the general index o f experienced ambiguity, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the emotional

consequences of r o l e ambiguity are very much l i k e those of r o l e c o n f l i c t . Ambiguity

leads t o increased emotional tension and to decreased s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h ones job.

I t also c o n t r i b u t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y to a sense o f f u t i l i t y and t o a loss of s e l f -

confidence. Conclusions about the personal costs of ambiguity are w e l l supported

statistically.

Columns 2 and 3 represent the experience o f ambiguity in. the task and. socio-

emotional areas r e s p e c t i v e l y . . Correlations o f emotional reactions w i t h lack of

c l a r i t y regarding r o l e expectations others hold toward the f o c a l person are

presented i n Column 2, w h i l e Column 3 presents comparable c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h

u n c e r t a i n t y about how he I s evaluated by h i s associates. Tension i s associated

w i t h ambiguity i n both areas, but some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s are found i n other

emotional responses.

^Ambiguity about r o l e expectations tends t o lead to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the

Job i n general and to f e e l i n g s of f u t i l i t y . I f one does hpt know what he i s

 4-20

Table 4-1

Correlations between Measures o f Experienced Ambiguity

and Various Emotional Reactions
(from the Intensive study)

Experienced Ambiguity Measures

Emotional Reaction 1. Ambieuity Index 2. Role Expectations 3. Evaluations

A Tens Ion 51** .44** .40**

_b Satisfaction 32!* -.33* .17

c Futility 41** .34* .20

d Self-confidence ,27* -.20 .44**

1.
P-values: * - .05 to .01, ** » <^01; :N - 53.
 4-21

expected t o do i n h i s j o b , he cannot a c t ; h i s sense o f effectiveness as an a c t i v e

agent i s s e r i o u s l y c u r t a i l e d . Paraphrasing N i g h t e r s r e a c t i o n (quoted above):

1

"What's t h e use^of going t o a l o t o f extra work t r y i n g t o keep up t o date on

various f i e l d s (e.g., labor contracts) which might be relevant t o the job; i t won't

get you anywhere i f you don' t know what they want o f you." Feeling t h a t one can

behave e f f e c t i v e l y ' on the j o b depends i n the f i r s t place on knowing what t h a t job

i s , what i t requires. On the other hand, ambiguity regarding r o l e expectations

i s not so detrimental to s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e — t h e problem i s i n the environment, not i n

the s e l f .

I n c o n t r a s t , uncertainty about how s a t i s f i e d others are w i t h ones behavior

:

does not c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o j o b - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or t o f e e l i n g s o f f u t i l i t y .

The i n t r i n s i c value o f the Job I s not seriously challenged by ambiguity i n

e v a l u a t i o n s , and the person i s generally able to; go on working. For the most p a r t ,

his e f f e c t i v e n e s s I n the j o b i s only moderately c u r t a i l e d when others f a i l t o

provide adequate evaluative feedback.

However, absence o f information about how w e l l one i s esteemed by h i s

associates i s a major source o f tension and a serious detriment t o self-confidence.

For most o f us, self-confidence i s based i n a process o f r e f l e c t e d appraisals

from o t h e r s . When the "looking-glass s e l f " i s seen dimly, confidence i s under-

mined almost as much as when i t i s seen d a r k l y . That i s , the. absence o f

e v a l u a t i v e feedback (or the presence of garbled feedback) may be almost as ego-

t h r e a t e n i n g as deprecating feedback.

Ambiguity and c o n f l i c t . Since the consequences o f c o n f l i c t and ambiguity

are s i m i l a r , the question o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h each other a r i s e s . There

are s e v e r a l reasons f o r expecting them t o be associated. (1) The presence o f

c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e pressures may create uncertainty f o r the focal person. I f

various people press him t o do d i f f e r e n t even inconsistent things, he may not know
 4-22

what to do. While each o f the expectations may be clear, i n combination they may

add up t o confusion rather than c l a r i t y . (2) I f the r o l e i s ambiguous f o r the

i

f o c a l person, i t probably i s f o r many o f h i s r o l e senders as w e l l . Conflicting

pressures might be more l i k e l y , ' under such circumstances, because the senders are

unaware o f the inconsistency i n t h e i r demands. (3) Some of the conditions we

have c i t e d as sources o f ambiguity--organizational size and complexity, rapid

change, d i f f e r e n t i a l objectives o f sub-parts o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n — a r e also (as we

s h a l l see I n Part I I I ) sources of c o n f l i c t . To some degree, r o l e c o n f l i c t and* role

ambiguity share the same spawning-ground.

I n f a c t , only modest-rfor the most p a r t , i n s i g n i f l e a n t — c o r r e l a t i o n s are

found between measures o f objective c o n f l i c t and o f experienced ambiguity. There

i s , however, a tendency f o r people experiencing high degrees o f ambiguity t o f e e l

t h a t they are overloaded and under more pressure than those I n more c l e a r l y defined

roles, ( r = .33, p ^ . 0 5 ) . This may represent a halo, o f negative response. I t is

also p l a u s i b l e that as ambiguity increases, the person s a b i l i t y to tackle h i s

0

job decreases. He i s overloaded, not because o f the o b j e c t i v e heaviness o f the

load, but because h i s capacity f o r handling i t i s r e s t r i c t e d .

I n s e r t Table 4-2 about here

I t appears t h a t c o n f l i c t and ambiguity are independent sources o f stress;

e i t h e r or b o t h o f them may be present i n any given r o l e . . Table 4-2 presents a

f o u r - f o l d comparison o f the e f f e c t s of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity on tension. I t is

apparent t h a t the presence of e i t h e r one i s tension producing, and i n about the

same degree. What i s equally i n t e r e s t i n g i s that the combination o f high c o n f l i c t

and high ambiguity does not appear t o be much more s t r e s s f u l than e i t h e r one alone.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Consequences o f Ambiguity

I n Chapter 3 we noted that r o l e c o n f l i c t s are generally s t r e s s f u l , producing

 4-23

Table 4-2

The E f f e c t s o f C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity on Mean Tension

(from' the intensive study)

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t
Degree o f
Experienced Ambiguity High Low Total

iilgh 5,27 5.00 5.17

(15) (9) (24)

Low 4.92 3.44 4.07

(12) (16) (28)

Total 5.11 4.00

(27) (25)
 4-24

tension, d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , a sense of f u t i l i t y , and the l i k e . Commonly t h i s leads

to such coping behaviors as r e j e c t i o n o f or withdrawal from those who are producing

the stress ( i . e . , ones r o l e senders) thus undermining f u r t h e r such a f f e c t i v e i n t e r -

personal bonds as t r u s t , respect,' and l i k i n g . We have j u s t seen that ambiguity i n

various aspects of one's occupational r o l e i s s i m i l a r l y d i s t r e s s i n g — t h e emotional

costs of r o l e , ambiguity are much l i k e those o f role c o n f l i c t . The question t o which

we now t u r n i s : Are the same kinds of techniques used f o r coping w i t h ambiguity

and are they equally detrimental t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l relationships? .

I n s e r t Table 4-3 about here

Evidence relevant to t h i s question I s found i n Table 4~2. Three general

trends i n these, data are p a r t i c u l a r l y worth n o t i n g . F i r s t , i t i s c l e a r l y

d i f f i c u l t t o maintain close bonds w i t h ones associates when confronted w i t h an

ambiguous environment.- This i s e s p e c i a l l y true f o r f e e l i n g s o f t r u s t i n others.

Just as one loses confidence i n s e l f w i t h Increasing u n c e r t a i n t y (see Table 4 ~ l d ) ,

he loses confidence i n the cooperativeness and good i n t e n t i o n s of others as w e l l

(Table 4-3a)„ Ambiguity has somewhat less pronounced influence on respect and

apparently none on l i k i n g f o r others i n the work s i t u a t i o n .

Second, not a l l areas o f ambiguity are equally relevant to interpersonal

relations. Ambiguity about r o l e expectations held by others and directed toward

the s e l f i s s t r e s s f u l and tends to undermine t r u s t , but i s i f anything, p o s i t i v e l y

r e l a t e d t o interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . However, uncertainty about the way one i s

evaluated by h i s associates—how s a t i s f i e d they are w i t h h i s b e h a v i o r — i s c l o s e l y

r e l a t e d to the strength of interpersonal bonds. The socio-emotional f l a v o r o f

ambiguity about i n t e r p e r s o n a l evaluations makes t h i s area of ambiguity both a r

source of emotional s t r a i n and a d e t e r r e n t t o close, supportive s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s .

T h i r d , a severe.reduction i n communication i s more evident when the stress

 4-25

Table 4-3

Correlations between Measures of Experienced Ambiguity and

Various Dimensions"of Interpersonal Relations
(from the intensive study)

Experienced Ambiguity Measures

Interpersonal Variable Ambiguity Index . Role Expectations ^Evaluations

a Trust i n others -.38** -.32* .42**

b^ Respect f o r others -,24 -.17 .29*

_c L i k i n g f o r others .02 .23 .30*

d Communication frequency -.10 -.14 .26

1..
P-valuess * » .05 to .01, ** « <.01; N •»• 53
 4-26

stems from c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e pressures than when i t involves ambiguity; the c o r r e -

l a t i o n s i n Table 4-3<i are modest when compared t o the strong f i n d i n g s on the

e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t on communication presented i n Chapter 3* This d i f f e r e n c e i s

highly s i g n i f i c a n t theoretically. Reduction i n the frequency of communication i s

i n t e r p r e t e d as a defensive withdrawal from a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . I f role

pressures from o t h e r s - = e f f o r t s by others to i n f l u e n c e ones behavior--create the

stress, a withdrawal from those others may be an e f f e c t i v e way o f reducing the

stress, a t least temporarily. I t i s quite possible t o avoid, f o r a time, pains

which are .induced by others through the use o f evasion t a c t i c s . So while s o c i a l

withdrawal may not be desirable coping -procedure i n organizations, i t i s neverthe-

less r e i n f o r c e d i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s .

I n ambiguous s i t u a t i o n s , which also produce emotional s t r a i n , there i s no

doubt a s i m i l a r tendency to withdraw. But i n t h i s case, withdrawal i s s e l f -

defeating immediately as w e l l as i n the long run. I f one lacks information about

various f e a t u r e s of a complex s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , r e f u s i n g t o communicate w i t h others

i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n w i l l h a r d l y resolve the ambiguity. I n f a c t , the absence o f

adequate communications may be a major source o f ambiguity, (A c o r r e l a t i o n o f .36

(p<*.01) i s found between the question, "Do you ever f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to t a l k t o

Mr, ?" and the degree o f ambiguity reported about the way he evaluates the

f o c a l person),

A f a r more e f f e c t i v e technique f o r coping w i t h ambiguity would be to increase

the frequency of communication w i t h others i n the s i t u a t i o n , t o engage them as

i n f o r m a t i o n gatherers and providers. I n f a c t , many people i n organizations use

j u s t t h i s method. I f they are unclear about what they can and should do a t some

time or about what others expect o f them, they go and ask; they seek c l a r i t y v i a

increased -communications. Unfortunately, many others do j u s t the reverse, and i t

i s the r a r e person indeed who continues t o seek out i n f o r m a t i o n from others i f h i s

 4-27

e a r l y e f f o r t s have been discouraged. I f the ambiguity p e r s i s t s i n s p i t e of our

communicative e f f o r t s , most o f us reach some p o i n t a t which we q u i t trying^ and
communication rates d e t e r i o r a t e . At t h i s p o i n t the d i r e c t i o n of c a u s a l i t y may be
reversed, w i t h reduced communication generating s t i l l greater ambiguity.

Thus, the modest c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Table 4=3^ probably r e f l e c t opposing

tendencies; 1) c o n t r a s t i n g responses of d i f f e r e n t people to b r i n g order out o f

chaos, ( c l a r i t y out o f ambiguity) v i a increased communication, and 2) to avoid

tension, e t c . , by withdrawing .from a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n .

The second o f these responses seems t o be more t y p i c a l when the ambiguity

centers around evaluations by others. There i s more evidence of withdrawal than

of a c t i v e seeking f o r information about how s a t i s f i e d others are w i t h ones

behavior. This i s l i k e l y true because i t may be both embarrassing and dangerous

to i n q u i r e about how w e l l one I s doing—embarrassing because i n our c u l t u r e a t

l e a s t i t I s unmanly
9l ,,
t o appear too concerned about how w e l l l i k e d and esteemed

one i s , and dangerous because of the consequent loss i n self-esteem upon learning

that i n f a c t others t h i n k very l i t t l e of you. I t i s b e t t e r perhaps t o fear the

worst than to know the worst about oneself.

The question then becomes; Does ambiguity about others' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h

oneself r e a l l y imply some state of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on t h e i r part? Do such others

i n f a c t perceive the focal person more negatively? There are good reasons f o r

t h i n k i n g t h a t they might. Perceptions o f ones associates are not e a s i l y communicated

nor are such communications e a s i l y received, e s p e c i a l l y i f they contain unfavorable

elements. For reasons of e t i q u e t t e i f nothing else, the more negative are peoples'

a t t i t u d e s toward each other, the less evaluative feedback takes place. I n or-

g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s where power r e l a t i o n s are h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , t h i s should be

a l l the more t r u e . Focal persons i n the intensive study r e p o r t more u n c e r t a i n t y

about the expectations and evaluations o f associates who have lower power and
 4-28

status than o f those .who are superior on these dimensions. This r e s u l t lends

support t o e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s about d e f i c i e n c i e s i n upward communications i n h i e r -

a r c h i c a l l y organized groups '(Kelley, 1951). I n general, r o l e senders are more

r e l u c t a n t t o convey unfavorable than favorable perceptions o f the focal person.

Thus, the more negatively he i s evaluated by h i s associates, the more uncertain he

should be about t h e i r evaluations.

But even i f unfavorable evaluations are expressed, they may not be "heard,"

The experienced ambiguity may r e f l e c t a defensive d i s t o r t i o n o f signals which are

c l e a r l y sent. Such d i s t o r t i o n s are prevalent, i n part, because of t h e i r e f f e c t i v e -

ness i n m a i n t a i n i n g self-esteem. We have already seen t h a t ambiguity c o n s t i t u t e s

a t h r e a t t o self-esteem, undermining ones self-confidence (Table 4=ld). But d i r e c t

reports from others about d i s l i k e d aspects o f the s e l f are even more threatening.

Thus, a confusion o f such messages—a r e t r e a t i n t o *mcertainty-~may be an important

defensive maneuver i n the service o f self-esteem.

There i s yet another reason f o r f a i l i n g t o receive negative evaluations from

others. A common response t o derogatory comments from others i s a h o s t i l e counter-

attack. B u t aggression, no matter how w e l l founded i n righteous indignation, i s so

o f t e n d e s t r u c t i v e t o f r u i t f u l c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s t h a t i t must be suppressed

I n s i t u a t i o n s o f continued interdependence. When people must work closely together,

as I s u s u a l l y the case I n i n d u s t r i a l organizations, there i s good reason to expect

derogatory feedback t o be suppressed both a t the source ( i , e . , by those h o l d i n g

the unfavorable evaluations) and a t the point o f reception ( i . e . , by those who

would be offended by them).

The problem becomes clear when the s i t u a t i o n I s expressed i n terms o f the

theory o f c o g n i t i v e balance (see Cartwright and Harary, 1956), Figure-4-1

represents a person, P, another person, 0, and P s self-image, P*. A t the o u t s e t ,

fl

we assume P would l i k e t o see himself i n a favorable l i g h t , indicated by the s o l i d

 4-29.

l i n e from F t o P*. Given that P and 0 must maintain a p o s i t i v e work r e l a t i o n s h i p

(the P-0 l i n e ) , i f 0 doe's not share t h i s favorable view (dotted l i n e from 0 t o P*),

the s i t u a t i o n i s p o t e n t i a l l y unbalanced. The balance can be restored i n any of.

three wayss 1) the p-P* connection can be changed t o negative (P loses self-esteem)

or e l i m i n a t e d (as i n i s o l a t i o n or p r o j e c t i o n defenses), 2) the P-0 bond can be

;
:

changed t o negative (P becomes h o s t i l e toward 0) or eliminated (P avoids working

w i t h 0 ) , and 3) the 0-P* l i n e can be changed t o p o s i t i v e (0 appears to l i k e ,

respect, approve o f P*) or eliminated (0°s evaluation o f P* becomes ambiguous).

o

I n s e r t Figure 4-1 about here

The f i r s t balancing'mechanlsm--changlng a t t i t u d e s toward the s e l f - - i s very

c o s t l y t o P, too c o s t l y t o use other than as a l a s t r e s o r t , and may be p a t h o l o g i c a l

i n the extreme. The seconds-deterioration o f P-0 r e l a t i o n s — i s probably q u i t e

common but i s c o s t l y f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Few organizations can long t o l e r a t e overt

h o s t i l i t y between persons who are h i g h l y interdependent. The t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e - *

d i s t o r t i o n o f O's e v a l u a t i o n o f P*»-Is perhaps the most economical f o r a l l the

participants. From the v i e w p o i n t o f the t o t a l system, i t may even be f u n c t i o n a l

i n m a i n t a i n i n g necessary working r e l a t i o n s f o r 0 to w i t h o l d unfavorable comment '

toward P, and f o r P t o f a l l t o read negative connotations i n t o any comments 0 does

make. (Note: I n some organizations, e f f o r t s are being d i r e c t e d toward f i n d i n g

c o n s t r u c t i v e ways o f g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g c r i t i c a l feedback. See, f o r example, the

work o f the National T r a i n i n g L a b o r a t o r i e s ) .

The d i s c u s s i o n above suggests t h a t unfavorable and o f t e n uncommunlcated

evaluations by associates are experienced by the f o c a l person as ambiguity about how

he i s evaluated. There i s , indeed, q u a n t i t a t i v e evidence i n support of t h i s

conclusion. Role senders 0

perceptions o f the focal person are summarized i n f i v e

f a c t o r s e x t r a c t e d from t h e i r r a t i n g s o f him on a series o f 22 t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e

 Figure 4-1

/
0
7»
/
/

0 or
/
P*

M P*
/
or
0
v P*

/
/

P*

or
 4-31

adjectives (The procedure f o r t h i s analysis i s included i n the appendix). While -

none o f these f a c t o r s i s associated w i t h any other measure o f experienced ambiguity,

four o f them are s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated w i t h ambiguity about others' evaluations.

The more t h e f o c a l person's associates see him as emotionally unstable, as lacking

i n a s s e r t i v e self-confidence, as being unbusinesslike, or as being unsociable, the

more u n c e r t a i n he i s about how s a t i s f i e d they are they are w i t h him.

Like r o l e c o n f l i c t , then, ambiguity emerges" as a prevalent c o n d i t i o n . I t s

forms are s e v e r a l ; some o f i t s organizational and interpersonal sources are

Identifiable. I t s consequences f o r the f o c a l person, whether he i s the v i c t i m o f

ambiguous circumstance or the user o f a c o s t l y defense, are r e g u l a r l y negative

and o f t e n severe. The consequences o f r o l e ambiguity f o r the interpersonal

f a b r i c o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and f o r organizational effectiveness, while somewhat less

documented i n the present research, appear to be no less negative.

 CHAPTER 5

ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES AS SOURCES OF STRESS

Most analyses o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t tend t o reduce i t t o the l e v e l o f

i n t e r - g r o u p or interpersonal c o n f l i c t , and understandably so. The c o n f l i c t s be-

tween l i n e and s t a f f , union and management, production and inspection, c r e d i t and

sales, and the l i k e are prominent i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l experience and c l a s s i c i n

organizational l i t e r a t u r e . The l i s t , however, tends not only t o be f a m i l i a r ; i t

tends a l s o t o be miscellaneous and without any l o g i c a l terminus. Subsuming these

and other c o n f l i c t s , Katz (1961) d i s t i n g u i s h e s three "fundamental types o f b u i l t - i n "

organizational c o n f l i c t :

Functional c o n f l i c t Induced by various sub-systems w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . ,

Every sub-system o f an organization w i t h i t s own d i s t i n c t i v e functions develops

i t s own norms and values and I s characterized by I t s own dynamics. For example,

people i n the maintenance sub-system have the problem of maintaining the r o l e

t

s t r u c t u r e and preserving the character o f the organization through the t e s t i n g

and assignment o f hew. employees, by i n d o c t r i n a t i n g and t r a i n i n g them, and by

devising means f o r insuring s a t i s f a c t o r y r o l e performance. . These people face I n -

ward t o the organization, and usually are committed to maintaining the e x i s t i n g ;

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e q u i l i b r i u m . People engaged i n such production-supportive

a c t i v i t i e s as procurement and sales, on the other hand, face outward upon the world,

and develop a d i f f e r e n t psychological o r i e n t a t i o n . So do people concerned

p r i m a r i l y w i t h problems o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l adaptation—research engineers and

market research s t a f f , f o r example. These d i f f e r i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s are one b u i l t

i n source o f c o n f l i c t . Put i n another way, the sub-systems o f maintenance,

production, and adaptation develop t h e i r own norms and frames o f reference, and i n

so doing create the elements o f p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t .

. Struggle between f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s i n d i r e c t competition w i t h one another. Large

 5-2

o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f t e n c o n t a i n two or more u n i t s w h i c h are s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same i n

f a c i l i t i e s and f u n c t i o n . T h i s arrangement may r e f l e c t simply the economy o f some

o p t lima 1 s i z e , o r i t may r e f l e c t the b e l i e f o f management t h a t I n t e r n a l competition

i s organizationally desirable. The numerous a u t o m o t i v e d i v i s i o n s o f the m a j o r

m a n u f a c t u r e r s - i l l u s t r a t e t h i s phenomenon on a grand s c a l e . • Whether u n i t s o f the

same o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n s engage i n h o s t i l e r i v a l r y or a k i n d o f

g o o d - n a t u r e d i n t r a - m u r a l c o m p e t i t i o n depends more on m a n a g e r i a l p o l i c y t h a n on

structure. The p o t e n t i a l i t y f o r c o n f l i c t , however, i s always p r e s e n t among such

units.

H i e r a r c h i c a l c o n f l i c t stemming from i n t e r e s t group s t r u g g l e s o v e r the o r g a n i -

z a t i o n a l rewards o f s t a t u s , p r e s t i g e and monetary r e t u r n . There are i n e v i t a b l y

d i f f e r e n t i a l r e t u r n s t o I n d i v i d u a l s o c c u p y i n g v a r i o u s p a r t s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

space. These d i f f e r e n t i a l r e t u r n s are n o t s o l e l y a m a t t e r o f monetary reward.

They i n c l u d e rewards o f s t a t u s , p r e s t i g e , power and psychological s a t i s f a c t i o n s

accruing from i n t e r e s t i n g and even c h a l l e n g i n g work. E s p e c i a l l y i f the h i e r a r c h y

i s r i g i d and e l a b o r a t e , w i t h accompanying c o m p a r t m e n t a l l z a t l o n by s t a t u s and

s a l a r y , w i l l t h e r e be v e s t e d i n t e r e s t . i n the defense and enhancement o f each group's

position.

Such i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s a f f e c t o r g a n i z a t i o n members b o t h generally

and s e l e c t i v e l y . They commonly decrease the e f f i c i e n c y o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and

may c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n of pervasive i n t e r p e r s o n a l m i s t r u s t and h o s t i l i t y . The

s e l e c t i v e e f f e c t s o f t h e s e i n t e r - g r o u p c o n f l i c t s a r e , however, o f t e n t r a n s m i t t e d by

the c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n o f i n t e r - g r o u p c o n f l i c t s i n t o i n t r a - r o l e c o n f l i c t s . •

When we l o o k a t c o n f l i c t between o r g a n i z a t i o n s , we can d i s c e r n types w h i c h

a r e c l o s e l y analogous; t o t h e t h r e e forms o f i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t described

above. For example, the b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a system w i t h i t s own special

g o a l s and dynamics. I n the achievement o f those g o a l s , I t encounters o t h e r systems,

 5-3

d i f f e r e n t l y oriented. Some o f these s t r i v e t o m o d i f y or c o n t r o l t h e b u s i n e s s

organization. The u n i o n s , the c o u r t s , and t h e governmental a g e n c i e s o f r e g u l a t i o n

fall i n t h i s category, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h business a r e o f t e n c o n f l i c t f u l .

Such c o n f l i c t s r e p e a t , o f t e n more p r o f o u n d l y , the type which c h a r a c t e r i z e s

. i
f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t sub-units of a single organization.

S i m i l a r l y , the c o m p e t i t i v e c o n f l i c t s w h i c h we remarked among f u n c t i o n a l l y

' . • •

s i m i l a r . s u b - u n i t s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n are m a n i f e s t i n more i n t e n s e form between

d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s which p e r f o r m the same f u n c t i o n and are competing t o d e t e r -

mine w h i c h s h a l l g a i n the g r e a t e r acceptance. T h i s ' o f course i s the dominant model

o f the f r e e market. I t s advantages have been o f t e n d e s c r i b e d , and need not be

r e i t e r a t e d here. The r e l e v a n t p o i n t f o r our p r e s e n t argument i s t h a t the model i s

c h a r a c t e r i z e d by b u i l t - i n p o t e n t i a l i t y f o r c o n f l i c t . Indeed, the e l i m i n a t i o n o f

such c o n f l i c t i s d e f i n e d e i t h e r as monopoly o r c o n s p i r a c y I n r e s t r a i n t of trade,

and the o r g a n i z a t i o n which reduces the c o n f l i c t o f c o m p e t i t i o n by so behaving

m e r e l y exchanges one form o f c o n f l i c t ( c o m p e t i t i o n ) f o r a n o t h e r ( l e g a l t r i a l ) .

The" c o n f l i c t o f h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s , w h i c h i s common and o b v i o u s w i t h i n

o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i s perhaps l e s s o b v i o u s a t t h e I n t e r p o r g a h i z a t i o n a l l e v e l , although

the c l a s h e s o f i n t e r e s t groups c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d t o . f i t t h i s t y p e . Finally,

t h e r e i s a form o f c o n f l i c t , w h i c h .becomes s h a r p l y emergent as we l o o k a t the

. r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s o c c u r s when two o r more . o r g a n i z a t i o n s

are p e r f o r m i n g some j o i n t o r complementary f u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g c o n t i n u i n g trans-

a c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a demonstrable o p p o s i t i o n o f i n t e r e s t , a t l e a s t i n s h o r t -

run terms. Thus the m a n u f a c t u r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n performs f u n c t i o n s complementary t o

t h o s e o f I t s s u p p l i e r s and t o those o f the j o b b e r t o which i t s e l l s . Nevertheless,

the o p p o s i t i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the t r a n s a c t i o n s o f

s a l e s and procurement are o b v i o u s and the r e s u l t s c o n f l i c t f u l .

L i k e I n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t , c o n f l i c t between o r g a n i z a t i o n s stresses
 I I

5=4

members o f t h e c o n f l i c t i n g . o r g a n i z a t i o n s u n e q u a l l y and i s o f t e n experienced as

Intra-role conflict. E s s e n t i a l t o understanding the selective e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t ,

b o t h w i t h i n and between o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i s t h e concept o f boundary p o s i t i o n . , A

boundary p o s i t i o n i s one f o r w h i c h some o f t h e r o l e senders a r e l o c a t e d i n a

different s y s t e m - - e i t h e r a n o t h e r u n i t w i t h i n t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n o r a n o t h e r

organization entirely. I t i s a - r a r e person who does n o t have a t l e a s t occasional

j o b - r e l a t e d c o n t a c t w i t h people o u t s i d e h i s work u n i t , b u t p o s i t i o n s v a r y con-

s i d e r a b l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o " b o u n d a r y - r e l e v a n c e T w o dimensions can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d :

1. The amount o f time a person spends i n b u s i n e s s c o n t a c t s w i t h people o u t -

side h i s work u n i t .

2. The Importance t o a p e r s o n s e f f e c t i v e j o b performance o f c o n t a c t s w i t h

5

people o u t s i d e h i s work u n i t . ( I n terms t o be i n t r o d u c e d i n a l a t e r c h a p t e r , this

d e f i n e s " f u n c t i o n a l dependence" o f a person o n these o u t s i d e r o l e - s e n d e r s ) .

H i g h boundary p o s i t i o n s ( i . e . , p o s i t i o n s r a t e d h i g h on b o t h t h e above dimensions),

are c r i t i c a l t o t h e study o f r o l e c o n f l i c t because they c o n s t i t u t e a major b a t t l e -

ground o f i n t e r - g r o u p c o n f l i c t s . I n a boundary p o s i t i o n between two c o n f l i c t i n g

g r o u p s , t h e i n c o m p a t i b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f r o l e - s e n d e r s a r e focused on t h e o c c u p a n t s 0

boundary p o s i t i o n s , and t o t h e g e n e r a l e f f e c t s o f i n t e r - g r o u p c o n f l i c t a r e added

t h e s t r e s s e s o f a s e l e c t i v e l y determined intra-role conflict. I n understanding

t h e s t r e s s e s on a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e I t I s i m p o r t a n t , b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t , t o know what

inter-group c o n f l i c t s are prevalent I n the organization. Organizational c o n f l i c t ,

l i k e d i s e a s e , does n o t s t r i k e a l l persons e q u a l l y h a r d . To understand t h e degree

t o w h i c h t h e s e c o n f l i c t s w i l l Impinge upon a c e r t a i n person, i t i sessential to

know t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f h i s r o l e - s e n d e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n f l i c t i n g g r o u p s .

The p r e s e n t c h a p t e r w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and consequences o f

two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary p o s i t i o n s ; p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v i n g important contacts

w i t h p e r s o n s o u t s i d e t h e company, and p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v i n g i m p o r t a n t c o n t a c t s w i t h
 5-5

persons i n s i d e the company b u t o u t s i d e the department o f the f o c a l person. Evidence

as t o t h e s t r e s s f u l n e s s o f b o t h these boundary p o s i t i o n s w i l l be drawn from t h e

intensive f i e l d study and the n a t i o n a l s u r v e y , and w i l l be e l a b o r a t e d by case

m a t e r i a l s i n d i c a t i n g the t y p e s o f c o n f l i c t s most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f d i f f e r e n t

boundary positions.

I. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Boundary C o n t a c t s

Complementary data on the i m p o r t a n c e and frequency o f a p e r s o n s j o b c o n t a c t s 0

beyond t h e f o r m a l b o u n d a r i e s o f h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n were o b t a i n e d from b o t h t h e

i n t e n s i v e s t u d y and the n a t i o n a l survey.

For t h e p o s i t i o n o f each f o c a l person i n the i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , t h e importance o f

work-required c o n t a c t s beyond the boundary o f the company was o b t a i n e d from t h e

Master A c t i v i t y L i s t s (see Chapter 4 ) , v

From these l i s t s , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a l l o f

the m a j o r and many o f t h e minor a c t i v i t i e s o f each j o b , t h r e e coders r a t e d f o r

each p o s i t i o n the e x t e n t t o which adequate performance depended oh t h e b e h a v i o r o f

people o u t s i d e t h e company w i t h whom t h e f o c a l person was r e q u i r e d t o i n t e r a c t . The

overall reliability o f t h i s v a r i a b l e as coded was .89 (average c o r r e l a t i o n among

the three r a t i n g s ) . I n the n a t i o n a l survey, the focus was upon the frequency w i t h

w h i c h each person i n t e r a c t e d i n a b u s i n e s s c a p a c i t y w i t h people o u t s i d e h i s

company; a c c o r d i n g l y , each respondent was askedg "How o f t e n d u r i n g a day do you

have something t o do as p a r t o f y o u r j o b w i t h o u t s i d e r s who have business w i t h

y o u r company?" Answers were coded on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e , r a n g i n g from Never t o

Nearly, a l l the t i m e . •

No a t t e m p t was made t o measure t h e i n t e n s i t y o f these b o r d e r c o n f l i c t s , nor

whether a n episode o f a c u t e c o n f l i c t was I n progress. Rather, we assumed t h a t

c o n f l i c t s a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s were more o r l e s s c h r o n i c . Conflicting

r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s were assumed t o be e v e r - p r e s e n t a t system b o u n d a r i e s , and t h e

boundary p o s i t i o n was p r e d i c t e d t o be u n r e l e n t i n g l y s t r e s s f u l . Acute lnter-group

 5-6

c o n f l i c t s were seen as the o c c a s i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f c h r o n i c c o n f l i c t s into

critical c o n f l i c t episodes.

S u p p o r t f o r the v i e w t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary r o l e i s exposed t o

c h r o n i c c o n f l i c t may be found i n Table 1, The dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s table

( e x p e r i e n c e d r o l e c o n f l i c t ) i s measured by t h e e x t e n t o f t h e respondent's r e p o r t e d

I n s e r t , T a b l e 5-1 about h e r e ;

f e e l i n g t h a t h i s j o b p l a c e s him " i n the m i d d l e " between two groups o f p e o p l e . The

e x p e r i e n c e o f f e e l i n g i n t h e m i d d l e i n c r e a s e s m o n o t o n i c a l l y w i t h t h e amount of. time

the p e r s o n spends i n b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s w i t h persons beyond t h e boundary o f h i s

company. Moreover, data from t h e i n t e n s i v e study c o r r o b o r a t e t h e v a l i d i t y o f these

reports o f c o n f l i c t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f r o l e - s e n d e r s , 68 per c e n t o f
x

the f o c a l persons i n company boundary p o s i t i o n s a r e s u b j e c t e d t o h i g h sent' p r e s s u r e ;

the c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e f o r p o s i t i o n s away f r o m the boundary i s o n l y 32 p e r c e n t .

What a r e t h e groups w h i c h convey t o t h e p e r s o n on the company boundary t h e

sense o f b e i n g caught i n t h e middle? I n Chapter 3, the M a t r i x o f Role C o n f l i c t

i n d i c a t e d t h a t , f o r the w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n as a whole, persons who f i n d themselves

between two groups a r e most l i k e l y t o r e p o r t t h a t these c o n f l i c t i n g groups a r e

management and u n i o n . T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s a comparable m a t r i x o f r o l e c o n f l i c t f o r

those p e r s o n s who i n t e r a c t w i t h p e o p l e . o u t s i d e t h e i r company " r a t h e r o f t e n " o r

"nearly a l l the t i m e , " As Table 2 i n d i c a t e s , these boundary r e s i d e n t s are most

l i k e l y t o f i n d themselves caught between management and people o u t s i d e the company,

I n s e r t T a b l e 5-2 about here

w i t h management-union c o n f l i c t s t a k i n g on a secondary importance. I n s h o r t , the

combined d a t a i n T a b l e s 1 and 2 I n d i c a t e t h a t as a p e r s o n s j o b - r e q u i r e d c o n t a c t s
0

o u t s i d e h i s company i n c r e a s e , t h e r e i s a: c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e i n the e x t e n t t o
 5-7

Table 5-1

Mean Frequency o f E x p e r i e n c e d Role C o n f l i c t i n R e l a t i o n t o

Frequency o f C o n t a c t w i t h Os O u t s i d e t h e Company
(Male wage and s a l a r y w o r k e r s o n l y )

Frequency o f C o n t a c t Mean E x p e r i e n c e d
Beyond Company Boundary Role C o n f l i c t N

Never 1.6 157

Rarely 2.2 42

Sometimes 2.4 51

Rather O f t e n 2.4 40

N e a r l y a l l t h e Time 2.6 55

F=9.65 p<.01

T a b l e 5-2

C o n f l i c t s Reported by Male Wage and S a l a r y Workers Who

Hold Company Boundary P o s i t i o n s , i n R e l a t i o n t o
. t h e Groups t o Which T h e y ^ A t t r i b u t e t h e C o n f l i c t
( N a t i o n a l Survey)

Group Percentages. A t t r i b u t e d C o n f l i c t s

1. P s Supervisor
!
4

2. Management 0 2

3. P's s u b o r d i n a t e s 10 , 5 0

4. Union 2 13 0 0

5. Other f e l l o w workers 8 9 0 0 0
o r emolovees '
6. Os o u t s i d e P's company 8 32 2 0 0 0

7. Other : 1 0 0 0 0 2 2
•
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T o t a l N r e p o r t i n g c o n f l i c t s 106; T o t a l N r e p o r t i n g no c o n f l i c t s 110
 5-8

w h i c h he f e e l s caught between the demands o f the o u t s i d e r s w i t h whom he must d e a l

and the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i s own management, whose i n t e r e s t s he must r e p r e s e n t and

protect.

, On the. b a s i s o f these t a b l e s , one m i g h t expect t h a t as a person's frequency

o f c o n t a c t s a t the company boundary i n c r e a s e s , he m i g h t f e e l g r e a t e r j o b - r e l a t e d

t e n s i o n as w e l l . Increased c o n f l i c t would thus become the i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e

between boundary c o n t a c t s and t e n s i o n .

I n s e r t T a b l e 5-3. about here

T a b l e 3 i n d i c a t e s , however, t h a t ' such a c o n c l u s i o n must be q u a l i f i e d , s i n c e the

a s s o c i a t i o n between company boundary c o n t a c t s and j o b - r e l a t e d t e n s i o n does n o t

appear t o be mo no t o n i c . The l e a s t t e n s i o n i s r e p o r t e d by people who are n e v e r

r e q u i r e d t o c r o s s the company boundary; b u t f o r people who must do so, t e n s i o n

scores a r e about t h e same r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e r e q u i r e d frequency o f c o n t a c t across

the boundary. Indeed, the g r e a t e s t j o b t e n s i o n i s experienced by persons w i t h

some, b u t not e x t e n s i v e , j o b - r e l a t e d c o n t a c t o u t s i d e the company. The 54 cases of

the I n t e n s i v e study do n o t p e r m i t so many d i s t i n c t i o n s ; t h e y do, however, show

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t e n s i o n among p e o p l e ' i n " h i g h " boundary p o s i t i o n s ( p ^ . O l ) .

T h a t people w i t h c o n s t a n t c o n t a c t o u t s i d e t h e i r own company t u r n out t o be

under h i g h o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t b u t something l e s s than maximum t e n s i o n suggests

t h a t t h e y may be w e l l chosen o r w e l l equipped t o handle the boundary c o n f l i c t s

they f a c e . They a r e , f o r example, h i g h e r i n m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s ( p ^ . 0 5 ) , and

they may be r e c o n c i l e d t o paying a p r i c e f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n o f those a s p i r a t i o n s .

The more v u l n e r a b l e o r l e s s a m b i t i o u s may be t a k i n g t h e s a l t y a d v i c e o f a r e c e n t

ex-President: " I f you can't stand t h e h e a t , s t a y o u t o f the k i t c h e n . "

T h e r e are o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s , however, w h i c h a m p l i f y t h e . e f f e c t s o f

s e l e c t i o n , and a r e suggested by the case m a t e r i a l s o f persons who l i v e a t the

 T a b l e 5-3

Mean T e n s i o n . i n ' R e l a t i o n t o Frequency o f Contact O u t s i d e t h e Company

-

(Male "wage and s a l a r y w o r k e r s : N a t i o n a l Survey)

Amount o f Contact
Beyond Company Boundary Mean Tension N__

Never 1,4 173

Rarely 2.0 43

Sometimes 1.8 52

Rather Often 1.8 47

N e a r l y a l l t h e Time -. 1.8 64

F=13.64 p<-001
 5-10

company'boundary.. F i r s t , o f these i s the improved coping which comes from personal

a d j u s t m e n t s , and i s b u i l t upon p r e y i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s with similar conflicts. There

d e v e l o p s an accumulated s e n s i t i v i t y o f when i t i s most j u d i c i o u s t o bend t o the

wishes o f o u t s i d e r s and when i t i s b e s t t o s t i c k t o company p o l i c y . Secondly,

people i n boundary j o b s are l i k e l y t o f a l l i n t o one o f a number o f o c c u p a t i o n a l

groups w h i c h f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s independent o f b o t h company and outside

r o l e senders. The most p r e v a l e n t o f h i g h boundary p o s i t i o n s , s a l e s and procurement,

make a v a i l a b l e t o occupants the o p p o r t u n i t y t o share t h e i r experiences w i t h many

o t h e r s i n g e n e r i c a l l y s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s and t o p r o f i t from t h e i r s i m i l a r experiences.

The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f these q u a s i - p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s may p r o v i d e the person a t

t h e boundary w i t h r e f e r e n t group s u p p o r t i n t h e c o n f l i c t s he faces, w i t h techniques

f o r r e s o l v i n g such c o n f l i c t s , o r s i m p l y w i t h reassurance t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s he

faces a r e n o t so much the r e s u l t o f h i s own shortcomings as the common - l o t o f those

who occupy boundary p o s i t i o n s . By c o n t r a s t , a person whose c o n t a c t s o u t s i d e the

company a r e l e s s e x t e n s i v e or' are shaped by t h e s p e c i a l requirements of his

p a r t i c u l a r j o b I s l e s s l i k e l y t o f i n d o t h e r s i n comparable p o s i t i o n s who can offter

experience and support.

A t h i r d r e a s o n f o r the s t a b i l i t y o f t e n s i o n scores among persons who cross

company b o u n d a r i e s a t a l l has t o do w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l acknowledgements o f boundary

difficulties. Such adjustments a r e most l i k e l y when t h e s i t u a t i o n i s f r e q u e n t l y

encountered. For example, an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o f o r m u l a t e a p o l i c y on how

t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s between i t s e l f and some o u t s i d e agency o n l y when such c o n f l i c t s

a r e e x t e n s i v e and serious. I f a person has o n l y o c c a s i o n a l c o n t a c t s w i t h o u t s i d e r s ,

he i s l i k e l y t o have t o i n t e r p r e t company p o l i c y h i m s e l f . The d e c i s i o n as t o

whose i n t e r e s t s t o compromise I n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n w i l l be h i s own, and he alone

must b e a r the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a wrong d e c i s i o n . On the o t h e r hand, a company

w h i c h i n c l u d e s many i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h e x t e n s i v e o u t s i d e c o n t a c t s i s more l i k e l y t o
 5-11

d e v e l o p p r e c e d e n t s and. f o r m u l a t e p o l i c i e s f o r r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s w i t h o u t s i d e agencie

Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s a person faced w i t h a c o n f l i c t between t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f

h i s company and those o f o u t s i d e r s may have r e c o u r s e t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i m p e r a t i v e s

i n r e s o l v i n g such c o n f l i c t s . A n a l o g o u s l y , army p o l i c y r e c o g n i z e s t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y
•• ' - i

o f c o n f l i c t i n g o r d e r s , and p r o v i d e s p r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e s o l d i e r t o a p p l y i n

r e s o l v i n g such c o n f l i c t s .

A r e l a t e d k i n d o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l acknowledgement o f the stressfulness o f

boundary p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e s p s y c h o l o g i c a l s u p p o r t and rewards. F o r example, some

companies send t h e i r u n i o n n e g o t i a t o r s o f f . t o do b a t t l e and l a t e r h i n d up t h e i r

h o n o r a b l e wounds much as s m a l l v i l l a g e s may once have d i s p a t c h e d and welcomed home

their Indian fighters. .

These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e data r e l a t i n g boundary c o n t a c t s r o r o l e conflict

.1

and t o t e n s i o n a r e t e n t a t i v e , o f c o u r s e . A d d i t i o n a l evidence f o r them, a l t h o u g h

indirect, i s a v a i l a b l e from t h e i n t e n s i v e study o f 54 f o c a l persons and t h e people

who c o m p r i s e t h e i r r o l e s e t s . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t persons i n boundary p o s i t i o n s

reduce t h e i n t e n s i t y o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h r o l e senders and seek o t h e r

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i s g i v e n some s u b s t a n t i a t i o n by t h e i r tendency' t o a t t r i b u t e less

power t o t h e i r r o l e senders* We have remarked e a r l i e r t h e tendency o f f o c a l ^persons

t o a t t r i b u t e l o w power t o t h e i r r o l e senders tinder c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h sent p r e s s u r e ,

and have s p e c u l a t e d whether t h i s r e f l e c t e d r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n power o r whether i t

was a d e f e n s i v e and d i s t o r t e d p e r c e p t i o n o f persons under p r e s s u r e . I n either

case, t h e tendency i s p a r t i c u l a r l y sharp ( p approaches .01) f o r persons I n boundary

positions. f
• "

A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n , a g a i n i n d i c a t i n g some a l i e n a t i o n o f t h e boundary person

from h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , i s a p p a r e n t i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among nearness t o t h e

boundary, degree o f s e n t p r e s s u r e , and c o n f i d e n c e o f t h e f o c a l person i n t h e

organization.
 5-12

I n s e r t T a b l e 5-4 about here

^

As T a b l e 4 shows, t h e expressed c o n f i d e n c e o f people i n boundary positions

v a r i e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h sent p r e s s u r e . When n o t s u b j e c t e d t o p r e s s u r e from

t h e i r r o l e .senders i n . t h e company, persons i n boundary p o s i t i o n s express h i g h

c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e company. When s u b j e c t e d t o p r e s s u r e from r o l e senders, however,

such p e o p l e express l e a s t c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e company. There i s a p p a r e n t l y some

r e a d i n e s s o n t h e p a r t o f people a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary t o r e j e c t t h e i r role

senders w i t h i n t h e company and t h u s reduce t h e sharpness o f t h e i r own c o n f l i c t s .

1

D e s p i t e a l l this,? as Table 5 shows, f o c a l persons i n boundary p o s i t i o n s a r e

l i k e l y t o be s u b j e c t e d t o h i g h sent p r e s s u r e from w i t h i n t h e company, and under

sucn c o n d i t i o n s t h e i r t e n s i o n scores a r e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h . ^ 0

I n s e r t T a b l e 5-5 about here

Resources and Demands

W h i l e t h e p r e c e d i n g data t e s t i f y t o the s t r e s s f u l character o f organizational

boundary p o s i t i o n s , t h e y do n o t I n d i c a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r forms these s t r e s s e s assume.

The most V i v i d t e s t l m o h e y as t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f these s t r e s s e s i s p r o v i d e d

by t h e p e o p l e who e x p e r i e n c e them i n vivo.' An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e case m a t e r i a l s o f

such p e o p l e suggests a number o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s typical

of their positions. One o f these has t o do w i t h t h e i r l a c k o f c o n t r o l o v e r

demands a n d r e s o u r c e s o r i g i n a t i n g o u t s i d e t h e company.

I n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n e f f i c i e n t r o l e , performance, a. person must a c h i e v e and

m a i n t a i n a balance between t h e demands made on h i m and t h e resources made a v a i l -

a b l e t o h i m t o meet those demands. The o f t e n - h e a r d c o m p l a i n t o f imbalance'between

a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s an example o f t h i s more g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e . When a l l

the people who e i t h e r supply r e s o u r c e s t o t h e f o c a l person o r make demands o n him

 Table 5-4

Confidence i n O r g a n i z a t i o n , i n R e l a t i o n t o
Sent Pressure and Nearness t o Company Boundary

Company Boundary

High Low t

High 5.28 6.38 1.50

Sent (18) .. (8)
Pressure
Low 7.57 6.67 1.89
(7) (15)

Total 5.92 6.56

(25) (23)

t. 4^66 M

Table 5-5

Job-related Tension, i n R e l a t i o n t o
Sent Pressure and Nearness t o Company Boundary

Company Boundary

High Low t

High 5.63 3.88 2.66

Sent (19) (8)
Pressure
Low 4.56 3.77 .93
(9) (17)

Total 5.29 3.80 2.96

t . 1.64 .13
 5-14

a r e i n h i s company, he can invoke shared o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms t o secure adequate

resources from h i s r o l e senders o r t o temper t h e i r demands. When he d e a l s w i t h

people o u t s i d e h i s company, however, h i s bases o f power over h i s r o l e senders are

l i k e l y t o be reduced. No l o n g e r can he appeal t o a common "company good" i n

s e e k i n g t h e m i t i g a t i o n . o f t h e i r demands, nor i n many cases does he possess t h e

power o f r e w a r d o r punishment i n s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t y . As a r e s u l t , he may be

q u i t e unable t o induce h i s r o l e senders t o p r o v i d e adequate r e s o u r c e s . The

achievement o f balance e l u d e s him.

For example, O i l Mover, i n charge o f the. l o g i s t i c s o f sending o i l by t a n k e r

t o m a j o r u s e r s , d e s c r i b e s the f o l l o w i n g - demand c r i s i s he must handle:?

"The customer i s o u t o f heavy f u e l o i l . The p r e s i d e n t o f t h i s company

w i r e d our company y e s t e r d a y a s k i n g us what we are g o i n g t o do about i t and
how we are g o i n g t o h e l p them o u t . I t f a l l s on my_ l a p t o t a k e a c t i o n
t h r o u g h r i s k i n g a r u n - o u t i n some o t h e r l o c a t i o n i n o r d e r t o f r e e a t a n k e r
for t h i s individual. I n today's p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , w i t h t h i s bad weather,
we a r e n ' t sure . j u s t w h i c h p o i n t t o s h o r t because we don't know what we can
b o r r o w from another.company i f we have t o . "

I f s u c h c r i s e s were e x c l u s i v e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e weather, t h e y might be

f o r e v e r beyond the c o n t r o l o f e i t h e r the f o c a l person o r h i s r o l e senders o u t s i d e

t h e company. But an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t e s t o these sudden demands on

O i l Mover's r e s o u r c e s by people beyond t h e boundary o f the company--demands w h i c h

m i g h t be l e s s c a p r i c i o u s were b o t h O i l Mover and h i s r o l e s e t o r i e n t e d toward a

common s e t o f g o a l s :

"And t h e n , you see, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e w e a t h e r — o u r w h o l e s a l e customers

buy f o r p r i c e reasons many t i m e s . O f t e n when the market p r i c e i s imminent, o r
these f e l l o w s t h i n k i t ' s imminent, they r a i s e o r lower t h e i r demands on us and
say t h a t i f you c a n ' t .supply the o i l when I want i t , I ' l l buy from someone
else. So we don't, want t o c a l l t h e i r b l u f f , so we have the pressure t o
perform."

T h a t such changes o f demand have some s a n c t i o n i n terms o f t h e m a r k e t economy does

n o t make t h e pressure on P t o s h i f t o p e r a t i o n s any l e s s t h a n were such changes

w i t h o u t s a n c t i o n o f any kind.

Even more d i s r u p t i v e t h a n such u n p r e d i c t a b l e and a r b i t r a r y demands o f customers

 5-15

o u t s i d e O i l Mover's company i s t h e f a i l u r e o f o t h e r o u t s i d e r o l e senders to perform

adequately i n areas of v i t a l concern t o him. O i l Mover, u n a b l e to control

adequately t h e r e f i n e r i e s ' s u p p l i e s o f o i l w h i c h he i n t u r n s h i p s to h i s customers,

must n o n e t h e l e s s bear the brunt o f the f a i l u r e o f these r e f i n e r i e s t o s u p p l y him

adequately:

"The m a n u f a c t u r e r s t e l l me t h a t t h e y ' l l make s o many b a r r e l s a day o r s o

many i n the month o f A p r i l . I f t h e y d o n ' t make i t , t h e y may. h a v e a good
r e a s o n f o r n o t d o i n g i t , b u t t h a t d o e s n ' t mean t h a t we don't have t o k e e p
the o i l going t o o u r customers.

"A r e f i n e r y from whom we a r e r e c e i v i n g s u p p l i e s w i l l commence t o l o a d a

tanker. I f t h e y m i s s t h e i r s c h e d u l e o r h a v e a n u p s e t p i e c e o f equipment i n t h e
p l a n t , they j u s t say-''I'm s o r r y ; we c a n ' t meet t h e s c h e d u l e . P e r i o d . ' Now
I'm s u r e t h a t i n t h e a r e a i n w h i c h we work i t seems t h a t when p e o p l e c a n ' t
p e r f o r m , they j u s t s a y ' I c a n ' t p e r f o r m ' and t h e n s t o p w o r r y i n g about i t . "

U l t i m a t e l y , o f c o u r s e , t h e a x e o f O i l Mover's company f a l l s on s u p p l i e r s who

fail t o perform up t o s t a n d a r d . I n the meantime h e must somehow g e t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

s u p p l i e s o f o i l moved t o c u s t o m e r s . H i s f e e l i n g s o f b l a m e l e s s n e s s may be l e g i t i m a t e

enough, b u t s e l f - r i g h t e o u s n e s s c a n ' t move o i l . I n such c r i s e s , f a i l u r e by O i l

Mover's u n i t t o o b t a i n and d e l i v e r o i l i s l i k e l y t o r e f l e c t a d v e r s e l y on him and

to result i n i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e s from r o l e s e n d e r s I n h i s own company. They may ;not

find i t easy to determine whether f a i l u r e t o move o i l i s r e a l l y h i s f a u l t , b u t

t h e y do know t h a t moving o i l i s h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . He-may p l a c e t h e blame f o r

f a i l u r e o n s u p p l i e r s o u t s i d e t h e company, b u t t h i s i s a n e x c u s e w i t h a r e s t r i c t e d

time limit.

A similar f a u l t - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y dilemma i s d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e c a s e o f Forms

Controller. He t o o I s p l a g u e d by t h e p e r f o r m a n c e f a i l u r e o f p e o p l e on whom h e must

depend, b u t who a r e s i t u a t e d beyond t h e boundary o f h i s company and o f h i s i n f l u e n c e .

Forms C o n t r o l l e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u p p l y i n g t h e r e s t o f h i s company w i t h forms

printed by outside contractors. Not i n f r e q u e n t l y , these c o n t r a c t o r s are deficient

either I n p r o m p t n e s s o r i n t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r work:

Q: "What a r e some o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s , o r p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s t h a t y o u have

 5-16

t o d e a l w i t h , t h a t a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r e s s f u l , l a s t i n g f o r a p e r i o d o f time?

A: " W e l l , I would s a y — i t ' s hard t o t r y t o f i n d one example because t h e r e a r e

s o m a n y — b u t a common one i s ' i f ' w e ' r e doing a b i g form o r d e r and i t b e g i n s
t o f a l l a p a r t . .That i s , t h i n g s go wrong on i t — t h e . p r i n t e r s can' t make
d e l i v e r y , t h e d e s i g n doesn't work t h e way we planned i t t o work.. I t won't
f e e d t h r o u g h t h e machines when we s t a r t t o use i t . Any one o f these t h i n g s
c o u l d cause us a g r e a t d e a l o f problems because t h e a c t u a l v a l u e o f t h e •
i t e m s we're t a l k i n g about i s t h e s m a l l e s t p a r t o f i t .
" I .could g i v e you a p r e t t y s p e c i f i c example. We have a c r e d i t c h a r t ,
w h i c h you a r e p r o b a b l y f a m i l i a r w i t h . I t goes i n t o a l i t t l e f o l d e r .
Those c r e d i t cards a r e prepared on IBM machines f o r t h e customers' c a r d s .
I t ' s i m p o r t a n t t h e r e f o r e , t h a t those c r e d i t c a r d s , s i n c e i t ' s an i n t r o -
d u c t i o n t h a t t h e company makes t o a customer, be a n . e x c e p t i o n a l l y good
p r i n t i n g j o b b u t a l s o t h a t i t can be processed r e a d i l y because m i l l i o n s o f
t h e s e must be sent o u t each y e a r .
"Now a j o b l i k e t h a t can g i v e y o u a g r e a t d e a l o f s t r e s s . For example,
we b i d t h i s j o b o u t and a p r i n t e r b i d f o r i t who we had l i t t l e experience^
w i t h and who t o l d us t h a t he c o u l d l i v e up t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s we had
w r i t t e n on the j o b . 'When t h e j o b came i n , u n f o r t u n a t e l y he wasn't a b l e t o
h o l d the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e j o b — t h e c a r d wouldn't feed through t h e
407. Now t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a r d s — a l t h o u g h i t was h i g h —
was nothing.compared t o t h e c l e r i c a l time t h a t was wasted i n f e e d i n g
t h e s e t h i n g s p r a c t i c a l l y one a t a time t o g e t them t h r o u g h . We were n o t
i n a p o s i t i o n where we could.re~buy- t h i s j o b — n o t because we c o u l d n ' t have
the< p r i n t e r re-do i t , o r because we c o u l d n ' t have gone t o another p r i n t e r
;

a n d re-boufent i t a n d - j u s t threw t h e money down t h e d r a i n , o r g o t a r e b a t e

f r o m - t h i s f i r m , b u t because o f t h e f a c t t h a t these cards had t o be i n
p e o p l e ? s hands by a c e r t a i n l e n g t h o f time o r we'd be o u t o f b u s i n e s s . So
we had t o make do w i t h , what we had.
"Now you're under a t e r r i f i c amount o f s t r a i n i n a s i t u a t i o n l i k e t h a t
because everyone i s screaming a t y o u and i t r e a l l y i s n ' t your f a u l t , b u t
y o u c a n ' t r e f u s e t o t a k e ' t h e blame i n t h i s t h i n g t o some degree, because
i t ' s i n the company's i n t e r e s t t h a t you g e t t h e "cards and g e t them o u t . "
•' r

Forms C o n t r o l l e r e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e s ^ t h a t , w h i l e such f a i l u r e s a r e n o t h i s

f a u l t , t h e y a r e nonetheless h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and, he knows t h a t o t h e r s i n h i s

company a r e l i k e l y t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s also. He s u c c i n c t l y summarizes t h e l i m i t -

a t i o n on p l e a d i n g g u i l t l e s s when people o u t s i d e h i s company f a i l t o p e r f o r m

adequately:
"Now, you can j u s t throw up your hands and say ' I t ' s a l l t h e p r i n t e r ' s
f a u l t , ' B u t , you know, you can o n l y do t h a t once."

Outside contacts: S t a b i l i t y and D i s r u p t i o n s .

Not o n l y a r e t h e f a i l u r e s o f o u t s i d e r o l e senders p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r e s s f u l t o a

p e r s o n a t h i s company's boundary; the performance inadequacies o f people i n h i s own

 5-17

company o f t e n p r o v e u n u s u a l l y d i f f i c u l t f o r him. Lacking formal a u t h o r i t y over

h i s outside c o n t a c t s , a p e r s o n a t the company boundary must r e l y h e a v i l y on

p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s o f power o v e r these r o l e senders; f o r the person i n a boundary

role, the trust, r e s p e c t and f r i e n d s h i p of h i s outside contacts i s l e s s a reward

than a n e c e s s i t y . Credit Expediter, f o r example, r e l i e s h e a v i l y on i n f o r m a l inter-

p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h h i s company's c u s t o m e r s . But according

to Credit Expediter, s u c h n e g o t i a t i o n s a r e c a r r i e d on w i t h i n t h e framework o f an

ambiguous c r e d i t p o l i c y :

" T h i s company works w i t h no c r e d i t p o l i c y a s f a r a s I'm c o n c e r n e d — o r

n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p o l i c y . I n some l a r g e c o m p a n i e s where t h e r e a r e so
many i n t e r l o c k i n g u n i t s , t h e r e i s no one d i v i s i o n o r p e r s o n t h a t i s w i l l i n g t o
s a y t h i s i s what you do and t h i s i s what you don't do. You're i n a c o n s t a n t
c o n f u s i o n a s t o w h e t h e r y o u ' r e r i g h t o r wrong, o r w h e t h e r t h i s I s a c t u a l l y
what t o p management w a n t s . "

How does o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n such a p o l i c y a f f e c t C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r ' s n e g o t i a t i o n s

with customers?

" I am a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e a s t o how I h a n d l e o r t a l k t o an I n d i v i d u a l
c u s t o m e r w i t h money i n v o l v e d — o f w h e t h e r I am r i g h t o r wrong or w h e t h e r
c e r t a i n p e o p l e i n the company want me t o do t h i s o r t h a t .
"You f e e l t h a t when you nave t o t a l k to somebody, y o u ' r e n o t r e a l l y s u r e
o f how much you c a n s a y . I t m i g h t t u r n out t h a t y o u r e "hedging sometimes.
9

And y o u m i g h t be c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e p e r s o n y o u ' r e t a l k i n g t o wonders °What

k i n d o f company do you r e p r e s e n t ? ' when you c a n ' t come o u t and t e l l him.
I s he w a s t i n g h i s time t a l k i n g t o me?
" T h e s e c u s t o m e r s e x p e c t a h e l l o f a l o t from somebody they do b u s i n e s s
with. T h e i r a t t i t u d e I s 'You're b i g , you have l o t s o f money, y o u have a n
o b l i g a t i o n . ' We've been c u s t o m e r s of, y o u r s f o r a l o n g t i m e . You have a n
o b l i g a t i o n to u s . ' "

Q: "So i s the t r u s t i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p a t stake here?"

" I t ' s p u t t i n g ' m y s e l f i n t h i s c u s t o m e r ' s s h o e s n e x t week or the week

a f t e r when we s i t down to t a l k t o him. I would wonder i f I were he ' W e l l ,
what, t h e h e l l i s the m a t t e r w i t h t h e s e p e o p l e ? Do t h e y know what they want?
Do t h e y know what t h e y ' r e d o i n g ? ' And ^ ' d l o s e c o n f i d e n c e i n the i n d i v i d u a l . -
who's d o i n g i t . "

And t h e ' / . I n d i v i d u a l who's d o i n g i t , " i n whom the v i t a l confidence i s l o s t i s , of

course, Credit Expediter himself.

The r e l a t i o n s o f a p e r s o n w i t h p e o p l e o u t s i d e h i s company a r e s u b j e c t t o other

 5-18

and c r u d e r forms o f d e s t r u c t i o n by t h e a b e r r a t i o n s o f r o l e senders i n the company.

T r a v e l S p e c i a l i s t , f o r example, i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making t r a v e l arrangements f o r

i n d i v i d u a l s i n h i s company. I n s e c u r i n g p a s s p o r t s and v i s a s f o r these travelers,

he must w o r k i n t i m a t e l y w i t h f o r e i g n , c o n s u l a t e s . He emphasizes the importance of

b e i n g , on f r i e n d l y terms w i t h c o n s u l a t e w o r k e r s ; he i s convinced t h a t o n l y t h r o u g h

these f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s i s he a b l e t o c u t t h r o u g h much o f t h e u s u a l r e d tape I n

s e c u r i n g a p p r o p r i a t e papers. But I m p a t i e n t people i n h i s own company who deal

d i r e c t l y — a n d u n d i p l o m a t i c a l l y — w i t h the c o n s u l a t e s , may jeopardize Travel Specialist

•\

r e l a t i o n s w i t h c o n s u l a r agentss

"But when t h e r e i s . a problem w i t h - t h e f o r e i g n government and t h e r e i s

n o t h i n g t h a t can be done--then, o f course^ yon'have t o be d i p l o m a t i c , because
you g e t some o f these ^people i n t h e company who want t o c a l l t h e c o n s u l a t e .
And t h i s the c o n s u l a t e doesn't l i k e . I won't say we f o r b i d t h i s , b u t we
discourage i t . You c a n ' t have some h i g h - p r e s s u r e e x e c u t i v e who i s 100% on a
p a r t i c u l a r problem blow up and t e l l o f f some c l e r k a t the c o n s u l a t e . Oh year
he w i l l t e l l o f f some c l e r k a t the c o n s u l a t e . Then t h e n e x t time, you go u p —
say, t h e next m o r n i n g — f o r one o f t h e o t h e r e x e c u t i v e s who wants t o t r a v e l t o
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r area, you.get a shut door. So you've g o t t o keep t h i s from
happening. Oh, i t has happened, and i t has taken two o r t h r e e y e a r s t o g e t
t h i n g s w o r k i n g t o t h e p o i n t where you can walk i n t o t h e c o n s u l a t e and say
'good morning.'"

We saw e a r l i e r t h a t r o l e senders i n s i d e the company have d i f f i c u l t y d i s -

t,

t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e f a i l u r e s o f a person a t the boundary and those o f h i s o u t s i d e

r o l e senders. The obverse o f t h i s problem i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n the two cases j u s t

described. I n b o t h these cases, r o l e senders o u t s i d e the company have d i f f i c u l t y

i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e p e r s o n a l f a u l t s o f t h e man i n the boundary p o s i t i o n

and f a u l t s which have o t h e r sources i n t h e company—an ambiguous c r e d i t p o l i c y o r

a hot-tempered executive. Whatever t h e immediate cause o f t h e company's f a i l i n g s ,

the d e l i c a t e r e l a t i o n s o f the boundary person w i t h h i s o u t s i d e c o n t a c t s are

jeopardized. Yet h i s p r e - o c c u p a t i o n w i t h o u t s i d e r s sometimes i n v i t e s d i s r u p t i o n

from w i t h i n . T r a v e l S p e c i a l i s t tends t o bend over backward t o m a i n t a i n h i s h a r d ,

won s t a t u s quo w i t h h i s o u t s i d e c o n t a c t s i n c o n s u l a r o f f i c e s . Role senders

w i t h i n h i s own company v o i c e f r e q u e n t c o m p l a i n t s about h i s tendency j u s t t o "keep

c o a s t i n g " and h i s r e s i s t a n c e t o s u g g e s t i o n s from them about needed changes i n t h e

 5-19

travel service.

C o o r d i n a t i o n Across Boundaries.

I n m o s t o f the company boundary j o b s reviewed above, a s i n g l e person o r

d e p a r t m e n t p r o v i d e d c o n t a c t between t h e company and a s e t o f o u t s i d e b u s i n e s s con-

tacts. A d d i t i o n a l problems a r i s e f o r a f o c a l person when he i s not the e x c l u s i v e

boundary c o n t a c t w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r o u t s i d e group, b u t r e p r e s e n t s o n l y one of

s e v e r a l company departments which a c t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and more o r l e s s Independently

i n r e l a t i o n t o the o u t s i d e group.

T r a f f i c Manager, f o r i n s t a n c e , heads one o f two departments which simultaneous-

l y d e a l w i t h people i n s h i p p i n g companies o u t s i d e T r a f f i c Manager's o r g a n i z a t i o n .

He has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a s s i g n t o these s h i p p i n g companies h i s own company's

contracts f o r transporting i t s fuel. Simultaneously, the t a n k e r s o f these same

s h i p p i n g companies are m a j o r customers f o r f u e l o i l s u p p l i e d by T r a f f i c Manager's

company; i n these m a t t e r s the s h i p p i n g companies d e a l not w i t h T r a f f i c Manager b u t

w i t h h i s company's s a l e s department. I n t h i s d e l i c a t e , r e l a t i o n s h i p between T r a f f i c

Manager's company and the s h i p p i n g companies which are a t the.same t i m e i t s

c o n t r a c t o r s and customers., he must guarantee t h a t no s h i p p i n g company s e r v i c e s

w i l l be so s l i g h t e d as a c a r r i e r t h a t I t w i l l b e g i n t o purchase f u e l from a

c o m p e t i t o r o f T r a f f i c Manager's company. I f he e l i m i n a t e s a s h i p p e r f o r i n e f f i c i e n c y ,

t h e s h i p p e r w i l l t h e n cease t o be a customer. T r a f f i c Manager d e s c r i b e s h i s

problem:-

"Most o f the c a r r i e r s we use a r e customers o f o u r s . They are l a r g e

p u r c h a s e r s o f f u e l p r o d u c t s . Now, we work v e r y c l o s e l y w i t h . o u r s a l e s agency
to endeavor t o u t i l i z e c a r r i e r s i n such a way t h a t we w i l l a i d and a b e t t h e i r
s a l e s . Now i n f o r e i g n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , due t o t h e f a c t t h a t a l l shipments when
they go i n t o p o r t go i n t o customs and t h i s s o r t o f t h i n g , these shipments
a r e p u b l i c r e c o r d s . These c a r r i e r s know e x a c t l y every pound o f f r e i g h t t h a t
every, competitor o f t h e i r s gets.
"So, we do have pressure on us f o r t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f f r e i g h t t o s u p p o r t
our s a l e s , and i t i s a v e r y ' d e l i c a t e s i t u a t i o n . . , Now, you-11 r u n i n t o , f o r
example, many c a r r i e r s o p e r a t i n g between here and Europe who have weekly
s e r v i c e . They're a l l good o p e r a t o r s so t h a t t h e i r s e r v i c e i s e q u a l ; t h e y
 5-20

b e l o n g t o a c o n f e r e n c e and t h e i r r a t e s a r e c o n s t a n t . So how s h o u l d we
a l l o c a t e o u r b u s i n e s s between,, s a y 8, 10, o r 15 l i n e s t h a t a r e o p e r a t i n g to
E u r o p e - - o f w h i c h maybe a l l a r e o u r s a l e s c u s t o m e r s , a l l . o f them a r e b u y i n g
p r o d u c t s from us---and k e e p them happy o r k e e p them r e a s o n a b l y h a p p y ? "

While keeping t h e s e c a r r i e r s happy, T r a f f i c Manager m u s t a l s o comply w i t h the

demands o f the s a l e s d e p a r t m e n t o f h i s own company: When a s k e d w h e t h e r he ever

gets c o n f l i c t i n g orders or i n s t r u c t i o n s from d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e around him, he

replies:

" W e l l , we g e t c o n f l i c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s from o u t s i d e t h e d e p a r t m e n t .
F o r e x a m p l e - - i n our r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e s a l e s d e p a r t m e n t on t h i s " a l l o c a t i o n
to c a r r i e r s . I mean, t h e s a l e s m e n — e a c h one would be t r y i n g to s u p p o r t h i s
l i n e , h i s c a r r i e r customer, Itfe h i s p e o p l e , s e e . . . C h r i s t , i f t h e s a l e s
d e p a r t m e n t h a s a c o n t r a c t with„a c a r r i e r coming up t h i s week t h e y ' l l s a y why
d o n ' t I h e l p t h i s c a r r i e r o u t ; t h e n n e x t week t h e y 1 1 s a y how come-somebody
1

e l s e ' s tonnage dropped o f f ' who I s ^ i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h t h i s c a r r i e r .

Y o u g o t so much tonnage and c a n o n l y s u p p o r t s o much. And i f y o u ' r e g o i n g to
g i v e i t t o t h i s c a r r i e r , you g o t t o t a k e i t away from someone e l s e . "

Quite understandably, i n t h i s l i g h t , when T r a f f i c Manager i s a s k e d :

" A r e t h e r e c o n d i t i o n s o r s i t u a t i o n s t h a t you have t o d e a l w i t h that"you

t h i n k . a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r e s s f u l on t h i s j o b ? "

He replies:

"Well, n o w — t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c a r r i e r s . I t ' s kind of a b i g

jigsaw puzzle."

Some o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r , who operates w i t h i n an u n c l e a r

and shifting company p o l i c y , have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d . Like the c o o r d i n a t i o n

p r o b l e m s o f T r a f f i c Manager, C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r s problems a r e c o m p l i c a t e d by
8
the

necessity of h i s co-acting w i t h another company d e p a r t m e n t i n h i s r e l a t i o n s with

r o l e s e n d e r s o u t s i d e h i s company. B o t h T r a f f i c Manager and C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r must,

i n d e a l i n g a c r o s s the company boundary, c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r a c t i o n s w i t h t h o s e of

t h e i r company' s s a l e s department. I t i s not uncommon, a c c o r d i n g t o C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r , f o r t h e

p o l i c i e s o f t h e s a l e s d e p a r t m e n t and h i s own c r e d i t d e p a r t m e n t to be a t odds, the

s a l e s department t r y i n g to induce the customer to i n c r e a s e h i s o r d e r w h i l e the

c r e d i t department i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y planning to reduce the amount o f credit

extended t h i s customer. To c o m p l i c a t e the p r o b l e m e v e n f u r t h e r , C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r

 5-21

is f r e q u e n t l y asked t o a s s i s t t h e s a l e s department i n making a s a l e on Monday t o

a customer whose c r e d i t he p l a n s t o r e s t r i c t on Tuesday. He says:

" I spent a l l day y e s t e r d a y on an account where t h e s a l e s department

c o u l d n ' t g e t a p a r t i c u l a r l u b r i c a t i o n o r d e r f o r a s h i p t h a t I was asked t o
g e t because o f my c o n t a c t . Now i t ' s a s t r a i n on me because t h i s happens t o
be one o f t h e accounts t h a t we're i n disagreement w i t h t h e s a l e s department
a b o u t . And I ' v e been asked t o s e t up a date f o r next week t o t e l l t h i s
customer t h a t we've gone t o o f a r w i t h h i s c r e d i t . Yet I'm asked t o secure
some a d d i t i o n a l business w i t h him. And I'm r e a l l y i n t h e middle on something
l i k e t h a t . . . So here I'm t r y i n g t o g e t a p i e c e o f business when next week
w e ' l l be t e l l i n g him we c a n ' t go on w i t h h i m .
" I t p u t s me as an i n d i v i d u a l i n a h e l l o f a s p o t . I have t o be so
c a r e f u l o f what I say i n t r y i n g ' t o g e t t h e b u s i n e s s away from c o m p e t i t i o n a t
a h i g h e r p r i c e , and then knowing t h a t n e x t week I'm g o i n g t o t e l l h i m t h a t we
c a n ' t c o n t i n u e on t h i s b a s i s .
"There i s a v e r y c l o s e f r a t e r n i t y i n s h i p p i n g c i r c l e s , and t h i s i n d i v i d u a l
happens t o be one o f t h e t o p owners. ' So i t i s n o t going t o t a k e l o n g t h a t
o t h e r s a r e g o i n g t o know o u r a t t i t u d e toward him w h i c h r e f l e c t s back t o me.
And I t i s g o i n g t o make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r me, -even Where I might have a c l o s e
r e l a t i o n s h i p . They're g o i n g t o wonder e v e r y time I c a l l o r see them, o r take
them t o l u n c h : 'Well, i s he going t o t e l l me t h a t my c r e d i t i s now g o i n g t o
be r e s t r i c t e d as he d i d t o my f r i e n d ? 8

" I t w o r r i e s me. I j u s t can',t f o r g e t something a f t e r i t ' s done, and

come back and do t h e n e x t t h i n g . I t ' s o n my mind. I t was on my mind a t
t h r e e o ' c l o c k t h i s morning. I woke up t h i n k i n g about i t , and I'm concerned
about i t . I s i t r i g h t o r wrong t o be d o i n g t h i s ? " .

There i s t h e f l a v o r o f g u i l t i n t h i s / q u e s t i o n . " Close p e r s o n a l t i e s w i t h

o u t s i d e r s a r e v i t a l f o r those on t h e company boundary. These t i e s , however, b i n d

two ways, l i k i n g and r e s p e c t from t h e o u t s i d e r s o f t e n b e i n g coupled w i t h s i m i l a r

f e e l i n g s o n t h e p a r t o f t h e boundary d w e l l e r . Y e t these a d d i t i o n a l bonds and

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s w i t h o u t s i d e i n t e r e s t s t r a n s f o r m C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r ' s f e e l i n g s from

r o u t i n e annoyance w i t h h i s company's p o l i c i e s i n t o t h a t s e l f - r e p r o a c h which doth

murder s l e e p .

II. D e p a r t m e n t a l Boundary Contacts

The i m p o r t a n c e o f boundary p o s i t i o n s f o r t h e study o f r o l e c o n f l i c t i s n o t

l i m i t e d t o those p o s i t i o n s which l i n k t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e f o c a l person t o

outside groups. P a r a l l e l problems occur w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h a l l

r o l e senders w o r k . i n t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n b u t w i t h i n d i v e r s e departments. The

 5-22

boundaries b e t w e e n s u b - s y s t e m s c a n be a s s t r e s s f u l as the boundaries between systems.

S e v e r a l r e s p o n d e n t s - w i t h e x t e n s i v e i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l c o n t a c t s r e m i n d us o f t h i s

fact i n t h e i r own w o r d s :

1. "I'm t r y i n g t o s a t i s f y a s many a r e a s o f t h e company a s we do i n o u r

d a i l y work, and o f t e n t i m e s h a v i n g t o p l a y t h e r o l e o f Solomon, someone i s
n o t g o i n g t o be f u l l y s a t i s f i e d . ' 1

2. " I would s a y t h i s j o b p o s e s a l o t o f s t r e s s f o r i t s l e v e l - - d u e i n
p a r t t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h w h i c h you work, b e c a u s e most o f t h e p e o p l e
a r e n ' t y o u r s u b o r d i n a t e s o r p e e r s . B u t w i t h i n y o u r d e p a r t m e n t a l framework,
you a r e w o r k i n g a c r o s s d e p a r t m e n t a l lines.

3. "At t h e p r e s e n t time we a r e c r o s s i n g d e p a r t m e n t a l l i n e s , from one

department t o another. Maybe t h e a p p r o a c h s h o u l d be t o have a s e p a r a t e group
f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y s o t h a t y o u g e t away from the c o n c e p t t h a t t h i s i s one
d e p a r t m e n t t r y i n g t o e n f o r c e i t s d e c i s i o n s on t h e o t h e r w i t h a l l o f i t s
vested interests."

4. "There a r e a r e a s where I bump up a g a i n s t o t h e r p e o p l e b e i n g i n t e r -

e s t e d i n t h e same t h i n g s I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n . I t h i n k by n a t u r e o f t h e k i n d
o f w o r k we a r e i n h e r e o r where I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n o p t i m i z i n g t h e company's
c o s t s a s w e l l a s k e e p i n g o u r c u s t o m e r s s u p p l i e d t h a t we c r o s s d e p a r t m e n t a l
l i n e s and poke i n t o o t h e r p e o p l e ' s a f f a i r s . "

F o r E x e c u t i v e ( C a s e 14-00) f e a r o f s u c h "bumping" and " p o k i n g " d e l a y s h i s

decisions i n a r e a s o f dubious j u r i s d i c t i o n . H i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e problem o f

ambiguity a t departmental boundaries w i l l be r e c a l l e d from C h a p t e r 4:

" I f i n d m y s e l f s p e n d i n g an a w f u l l o t o f t i m e t r y i n g t o d e c i d e j u s t who
s h o u l d do a c e r t a i n j o b - - w h e t h e r i t s h o u l d be w i t h i n o u r own d e p a r t m e n t , o r
t h e c o n t r o l l e r ' s d i v i s i o n o r t h e programmer's d i v i s i o n , o r t h e o p e r a t i o n s
d i v i s i o n or the analysis d i v i s i o n . I t h i n k t h i s i s a great waste of time,
a n d - p e r s o n a l l y I t h i n k t h a t i t h a s been q u i t e a p e r s o n a l k i n d o f w a s t e . I
hate t h i s kind o f waste. Maybe I'm p e c u l i a r t h a t way. I don't know. T h i s
b o t h e r s me q u i t e a b i t . "

While E x e c u t i v e s ' p e c u l i a r departmental problems a r e e x p e r i e n c e d a s 'un-

c e r t a i n t y , Nighter ( C a s e 42-00, s e e C h a p t e r 3) emphasizes t h e c o n f l i c t u a l aspects

of h i s boundary d i f f i c u l t i e s . The o p p o s i n g demands o f h i s own s u p e r i o r ( f o r h i g h

production r a t e s ) and t h e day s h i f t superintendent ( f o r whom he must l e a v e a d e q u a t e

s u p p l i e s i n t h e f e e d e r l i n e s ) a r e a l l t h e more d i f f i c u l t t o cope w i t h b e c a u s e t h e

two shifts exist as s e p a r a t e sub-systems, e a c h w i t h i t s own o b j e c t i v e s , p o t e n t i a l

rewards, a n d modes o f o p e r a t i o n . Nighter i s left feeling " l i k e a r o s e between two

t h o r n s , " n o t knowing whom he ought t r y t o s a t i s f y .

 5-23

T r a n s l a t i n g i n t o s t a t i s t i c a l terms the a l l u s i o n s o f these respondents r e -

g a r d i n g t h e s t r e s s f u l n e s s o f d e p a r t m e n t a l b o u n d a r i e s was done i n a manner s i m i l a r

t o t h a t d e s c r i b e d i n the a n a l y s i s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary p o s i t i o n s . For each

f o c a l p o s i t i o n i n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , the importance o f c o n t a c t s across d e p a r t m e n t a l

l i n e s was coded from t h e Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t f o r t h a t p o s i t i o n ( i n t e r - j u d g e c o d i n g

reliability .66). 3
As was the case w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary p o s i t i o n s , people

i n these d e p a r t m e n t a l boundary p o s i t i o n s were found t o have s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r

t e n s i o n s c o r e s t h a n people i n "non-boundary" p o s i t i o n s . These data are p r e s e n t e d

i n T a b l e 6. Of t h e people i n p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h i n t e r - d e p a r t m e n t a l c o n t a c t s

are I m p o r t a n t , 74' per c e n t a r e h i g h i n t e n s i o n (above t h e median); among people

i n p o s i t i o n s f o r which i n t e r - d e p a r t m e n t a l c o n t a c t s a r e n o t i m p o r t a n t , o n l y 40

per c e n t a r e under h i g h t e n s i o n .

I n s e r t Table 5-6 about here

Data f r o m the n a t i o n a l survey a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h these f i n d i n g s . Each r e -

spondent r e p o r t e d t h e frequency o f h i s c o n t a c t s w i t h o t h e r s o u t s i d e h i s own d e p a r t -

ment. As T a b l e 7 shows, f e e l i n g s o f t e n s i o n and o f b e i n g caught " i n the m i d d l e " i n -

crease r e g u l a r l y w i t h frequency o f c o n t a c t a c r o s s d e p a r t m e n t a l l i n e s . This r e l a t i o n -

s h i p i s r e l i e v e d (as i t was f o r p o s i t i o n s a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary) on under

the peak c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h c r o s s - d e p a r t m e n t a l c o n t a c t s occur " n e a r l y a l l t h e t i m e . "

For such s p e c i a l i z e d r o l e s , we assume t h a t s e l e c t i o n , t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r , and t h e

a d a p t a t i o n of* o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i c y and machinery combine t o p r e v e n t a s i t u a t i o n

w h i c h w o u l d o t h e r w i s e be b o t h c h r o n i c and u n b e a r a b l e — a k i n d o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l terms.

I n s e r t Table 5-7 about here

 Table 5-6

Importance o f Departmental Boundaries

i n R e l a t i o n t o Tension Scores
( I n t e n s i v e Study)

D e p a r t m e n t a l Boundary C o n d i t i o n Mean T e n s i o n

High (cross-departmental contacts

.important t o f o c a l p o s i t i o n )

Low (cross-departmental contacts not

.Important, t o f o c a l p o s i t i o n )
 T a b l e 5-7

Frequency of Contact Across Departmental Boundaries,

i n R e l a t i o n t o T e n s i o n and F e e l i n g s o f " B e i n g i n t h e M i d d l e "
(National Survey)

Frequency of contacts Tension: F e e l i n g s of "being i n

o u t s i de dep a r tment mean s c o r e s N the middle": N
mean s c o r e s

Never 1 1,43 116 1.67 101

2 1.60 88 1,92 83

3 1.78 88 2.25 80

4 1.88 52 2.53 49

Nearly a l l
the time 5 1.80 34 2.39 31

F=6.48 F-5.12

p<01 P < 0 1
 5-26

P r o b l e m s o f Power and Misunderstanding.

Two b a s i c problems o f p e o p l e In departmental boundary p o s i t i o n s a r e analogous

to t h o s e f a c e d by t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s a t the company boundary: having a reduced

repertoire of techniques e f f e c t i v e f o r i n f l u e n c i n g r o l e senders outside t h e i r own

d e p a r t m e n t , and h a v i n g a s i z a b l e number o f r o l e s e n d e r s who do not u n d e r s t a n d the

demands o f t h e boundary j o b .

Admittedly, the l i n e which s e p a r a t e s departments i s l e s s o f a boundary t h a n the

l i n e which s e p a r a t e s one o r g a n i z a t i o n from a n o t h e r . The p e r s o n a t the departmental

b o u n d a r y s h a r e s w i t h h i s r o l e s e n d e r s i n o t h e r departments certain organizational

norms n o t s h a r e d by p e o p l e o u t s i d e t h e company. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t s u c h norms e x i s t

and a r e e x p l i c i t l y s h a r e d , t h e boundary d w e l l e r c a n i n v o k e t h e i r power o v e r h i s e x t r a -

departmental role senders. The n o r m a t i v e s t r u c t u r e of l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s o f t e n

fragmentary, however, and the l e v e l s i n t h e f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e a t w h i c h he and

his r o l e s e n d e r s a r e u n i t e d may be remote and Inaccessible. IBM C o n v e r t e r , f o r

example, d e v e l o p s computer programs w h i c h w i l l make some o f t h e work o f o t h e r "client"

departments amenable to p r o c e s s i n g by e l e c t r o n i c equipment. We will s e e l a t e r how his

i m m e d i a t e j o b c r i s e s c e n t e r around t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e s e c l i e n t departments to provide

him w i t h a d e q u a t e a i d o r i n f o r m a t i o n ; he r e c o g n i z e s t h i s but f e e l s u n a b l e to per-

suade or o r d e r the c o l l a b o r a t i o n h i s r o l e r e q u i r e s . IBM C o n v e r t e r l o c a t e s a major

source of h i s s t r e s s i n s p a t i a l arrangements:

"...you a r e w o r k i n g w i t h p e o p l e who a r e not d i r e c t l y under you, or

to whom you c a n n o t g i v e d i r e c t commands."

A second s o u r c e o f IBM C o n v e r t e r ' s s t r e s s lies i n the r e s t r i c t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g that

the c l i e n t departments have o f h i s Job. The o r g a n i z a t i o n has a t t e m p t e d to

ameliorate t h i s p r o b l e m by a p p o i n t i n g i n the c l i e n t departments liaison persons

who a r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e about IBM m a t t e r s . Because t h e new p o s i t i o n s have o n l y

modest s t a t u s , however, and b e c a u s e t h e y a r e new, the l i a i s o n people have little

power w i t h i n t h e i r own departments. When a c r i s i s a r i s e s and IBM C o n v e r t e r n e e d s

increased i n f o r m a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e from t h e c l i e n t d e p a r t m e n t s , a liaison man

 5-27

can u n d e r s t a n d and s y m p a t h i z e , b u t he i s i n a power p o s i t i o n t o o low to do v e r y much

about i t . I n s u c h c r i s e s IBM C o n v e r t e r must b y - p a s s t h e l i a i s o n man and d e a l directly

w i t h the head of the c l i e n t department t o g e t what he w a n t s . How does t h e l i a i s o n man

f e e l about b e i n g thus b y - p a s s e d ? As IBM C o n v e r t e r u n d e r s t a t e s t h e c a s e :

"He may r e s e n t i t . "

F o r C o n v e r t e r t o a c t w h o l l y through the d i r e c t o r s of c l i e n t departments would s e r v e

only to a l i e n a t e the l i a i s o n people; a c t i n g through the knowledgeable but p o w e r l e s s

l i a i s o n p e o p l e , however, s i m p l y w i l l n o t p e r m i t C o n v e r t e r t o g e t h i s work done. In

s h o r t , k n o w l e d g e i s n o t a l w a y s power, and a l i a i s o n p e r s o n , however u n d e r s t a n d i n g , who

has little power i n h i s own s p h e r e , i s h a r d l y b e t t e r t h a n no l i a i s o n at a l l .

The c o m p l a i n t of being misunderstood figures largely i n the conversations of

persons i n departmental boundary p o s i t i o n s . Moreover, t h e r e i s independent evidence

that t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s a r e founded i n f a c t . Having prepared a Master Activities List

f o r e a c h p o s i t i o n , we w e r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o compare t h e knowledge o f e a c h r o l e sender

regarding t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n with the f u l l requirements o f t h a t p o s i t i o n a s shown on

the Master Activities List. When we made t h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s , a marked association

was apparent between t h e knowledge o f r o l e s e n d e r s and t h e i r d i s t a n c e from t h e f o c a l

position. E v e r y boundary, w i t h i n and between d e p a r t m e n t s , s e r v e s t o reduce the role

s e n d e r s ' knowledge of t h e f o c a l job. Between d e p a r t m e n t s , t h e e f f e c t o f t h e boundary

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s h a r p f o r t h o s e r o l e s e n d e r s who have no s p e c i f i c liaison functions

across departmental lines. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s these r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here

Illustrations of t h i s second p e r s i s t e n t problem of p e r s o n s a t departmental

b o u n d a r i e s - - h a v i n g r o l e s e n d e r s who do n o t u n d e r s t a n d the f u l l requirements of the

focal position--are plentiful i n the i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l s . IBM C o n v e r t e r d e s c r i b e s

such d i f f i c u l t i e s v i v i d l y , b u t a t t h e same t i m e r e c o g n i z e s t h a t the f a c t o r s which

would encourage h i s r o l e senders to understand h i s j o b b e t t e r may be s u b t l e and

informal:
 5-28

Figure 1

Mean Adequacy o f R o l e S e n d e r s C o n c e p t i o n s o f F o c a l P o s i t i o n s ,
1

i n R e l a t i o n to O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Proximity

40 (40.4)

(38.4)

(35.7)
O v e r a l l F t e s t - of
differences 5.23
p<:oi
(34.7)

(28.6)
25

•2 I
CO to CO
- co
0) CO CO
0)
4J
CO

2?
CO

CO
°* 3
 5-29

" I n o u r s i t u a t i o n we a r e l o c a t e d d o w n s t a i r s and t h e c l i e n t s a r e n o t l o c a t e d
i n t h i s b u i l d i n g . I t ' s n o t a great, d i s t a n c e , b u t i t i s s t i l l enough so t h a t
you c a n ' t have c o f f e e every day. I t m i g h t be more o f a p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r
than a n a t u r a l one."

What changes would IBM C o n v e r t e r l i k e t o see i n t h e r o l e senders who l i e beyond t h i s

barrier?

" I t h i n k a sense o f co-operation--maybe a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e

amount o f work t h a t i s i n v o l v e d , t h e amount o f e f f o r t t h a t has t o go i n t o t h i n g s . "

He has made some o v e r t u r e s toward r e c t i f y i n g t h i s l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g on t h e p a r t

of h i s c l i e n t s :

"They have seen movies, b u t movies a r e n ' t long enough f o r what i s i n v o l v i e d .

They a r e n ' t r e q u i r e d t o pay a t t e n t i o n v e r y c l o s e l y . I t h i n k we w i l l f o l l o w up
w i t h t h i s . They have done i t i n some o f t h e o t h e r groups w i t h f a i r success.,.
M a t t e r o f f a c t , sometime i n t h e p a s t we have been t a l k i n g about s e t t i n g up a
s h o r t IBM course f o r t h e people i n one o f t h e c l i e n t departments. T h i s i s p r i -
marily for...." (Here he names t h e groups o f people a t whom these courses would
be aimed. The o n l y person he c i t e s by name, i n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, i s t h e h i g h -
power and low-knowledge d i r e c t o r o f t h e c l i e n t department.)

I n d e s c r i b i n g t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h i s computer s t a f f , IBM C o n v e r t e r q u i t e f a i r l y recog-

n i z e s t h a t t h e y , t o o , m i g h t have t h e i r b l i n d spots r e g a r d i n g t h e work o f t h e c l i e n t

departments:

" I t h i n k t h a t t h e r e t h e problem i s t h a t t h e y l o o k a t i t s t r i c t l y from t h e

machine p o i n t o f view and a r e n ' t aware o f t h e needs o f t h e c l i e n t department."

Yet v i r t u a l l y a l l r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s d i r e c t e d t o IBM C o n v e r t e r emanate from one o f

these two g r o u p s : h i s c l i e n t s o r t h e computer s p e c i a l i s t s themselves. His a c t i v i t i e s

are c o m p l e t e l y d e f i n e d by sendings from these two p o l e s o f r e c i p r o c a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g .

Other f o c a l p e r s o n s , whose j o b s have l i t t l e i n common w i t h t h a t o f IBM C o n v e r t e r

except f o r l o c a t i o n a t a d e p a r t m e n t a l boundary, t e l l s i m i l a r s t o r i e s o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s

1 . "The marine department, from t h e i r p o i n t o f v i e w , would p r e f e r t o

c h a r t e r o n l y t h e l a r g e d i r t y t a n k e r s . W e , on t h e o t h e r hand, have determined
t h a t o u r need i s f o r s m a l l , c l e a n s h i p s where t h e r a t e s a r e h i g h e s t . M a r i n e i s
t e l l i n g us t o do one t h i n g and we're t e l l i n g them we ought t o do a n o t h e r t h i n g .
The o b v i o u s t h i n g t h a t i s wrong i s t h a t t h e y don't have possession o f a l l t h e
f a c t s . They a r e l o o k i n g a t i t from t h e f a c t s they have a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m — t h e
marine angle,"

2. " I n t h i s p o s i t i o n we c o - o r d i n a t e a l o t o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f a number o f
a f f i l i a t e s . We t r y and p r o v i d e t h e most economical d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c r u d e p r o d u c t s
 5-30

p o s s i b l e from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f t h e p a r e n t company. And we r u n i n t o problems

i n c e s s a n t l y w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from i n d i v i d u a l a f f i l i a t e s who a r e always t r y -
ing t o p r o t e c t t h e i r own p o s i t i o n a t t h e expense o f o t h e r a f f i l i a t e s 1
positions
and a t t h e expense o f t h e p a r e n t company...And we have t o f i g h t them t o o t h and
n a i l and t h i s becomes d i s c o u r a g i n g a f t e r a w h i l e . "

Both t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e data and t h e above examples emphasize t h e f a c t t h a t each

r o l e sender develops a c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n w h i c h I s almost i n e v i t a b l y

b i a s e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e r o l e sender i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f o c a l

person. I n some o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h r o l e senders, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e t e c t

q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r sendings w h i c h seem t o r e f l e c t t h e i r p e c u l i a r

biases. Take, f o r example, t h e c o m p l a i n t s l e v e l e d a g a i n s t IBM C o n v e r t e r from v a r i o u s

members o f h i s r o l e s e t :

From h i s s u p e r i o r - -

"Because o f h i s p a r t i c u l a r assignments and t h e c l i e n t s he's d e a l i n g w i t h ,

I t h i n k i n some cases he m i g h t be a l i t t l e tougher w i t h them, and i n s i s t a
l i t t l e more on documentation."

From one o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s —

"He s h o u l d s e l l ideas t o c l i e n t s w i t h more f o r c e f u l n e s s . "

From a second s u b o r d i n a t e - -

"I'd p r e f e r he n o t l e t t h e c l i e n t work so c l o s e l y w i t h him on d e t a i l work."

From a n o t h e r s u b o r d i n a t e - -

" I would l i k e him t o be a l i t t l e f i r m e r i n d e a l i n g w i t h c l i e n t s . I ' d l i k e

him t o be n o t as o b l i g i n g as he i s t o o u r c l i e n t c o n t a c t s , take f i r m e r approach
i n d e a l i n g w i t h these people i n h i s r e s i s t a n c e t o changing or c a t e r i n g t o t h e
whims o f o u r c l i e n t s . "

But f r o m t h e o p p o s i t e p o l e , a c l i e n t says--

" I would l i k e t o c o n t r o l t h e new system w h i c h i s b e i n g s e t up, b u t as o f now

our department doesn't have t h e f i n a l say i n t h i s m a t t e r . I ' d l i k e h i m t o f o l l o w
our recommendations more t h a n he i s now. I would l i k e him t o be more open-minded
and w i l l i n g t o accept my i d e a s and those o f our department, e s p e c i a l l y r e l a t i n g t o
our i d e a s r e g a r d i n g s e t t i n g up t h e new machine system i n our department."

And f r o m a n o t h e r c l i e n t - -

" I w i s h he'd ask us more o f t e n what we t h i n k when he's f o r e c a s t i n g . "

 5-31

A p e r s o n i n a d e p a r t m e n t a l boundary j o b i s , t h e r e f o r e , l i k e l y t o be c o n f r o n t e d
by r o l e senders who a r e e s s e n t i a l t o h i s j o b , who a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s i m p e r f e c t l y ac-
q u a i n t e d w i t h i t , and who a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o h i s c o n t r o l . These g e r m i n a l sources o f
d i f f i c u l t y come t o f r u i t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f c r i t i c a l and s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s , g e n e r i -
c a l l y s i m i l a r t o those f a c e d by persons i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary p o s i t i o n s . These
s i t u a t i o n s can be c a t e g o r i z e d as problems o f access t o r e s o u r c e s , i n f l e x i b i l i t y o f
r o l e - s e n d e r s , and o f c o o r d i n a t i o n .

Inadequate Access t o Resources

Most o f t h e c o n f l i c t episodes d e s c r i b e d by IBM Converter c e n t e r around t h e

f a i l u r e s o f c l i e n t departments t o p r o v i d e a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n he needs t o work out

t h e i r computer programs. O f t e n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s w i t h h e l d a t the time when he needs

i t most. N o t o n l y does i n f o r m a t i o n from c l i e n t departments appear e i t h e r a t t h e wrong

t i m e o r n o t a t a l l ; even when c l i e n t s have s u p p l i e d such i n f o r m a t i o n , they a r e l i k e l y

t o change t h e i r minds:

" I was f e e l i n g anxious, because even b e f o r e t h a t we had developed a master

r e c o r d . And when we reached t h e stage o f t e s t i n g t h a t , they decided t h e y would
l i k e t o have some changes made. And t h e time f o r making changes, f o r r e v i e w i n g
and making s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r what they needed, took longer than what i t should.
So t h i s was a l l backwards, 11

Yet h i s w o r k must bend and sway i n response t o such changes and d e l a y s . At several

p o i n t s , IBM Converter a t t r i b u t e s these a b e r r a t i o n s t o c l i e n t s 1

f a i l u r e s t o understand

the l i m i t a t i o n s and a b i l i t i e s o f computers and t o t h e i r n o t r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t h i s

department a l s o has work schedules i t must meet. I r o n i c a l l y but understandably,

IBM C o n v e r t e r ' s c l i e n t s complain about h i s f a i l u r e t o supply them w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n

a t a time when they n e e d ' i t and i n a form t h e y can understand.

Accountant has a j o b f o r w h i c h , i n t h e words o f one o f h i s r o l e s e t , "he has

t o have a t h i s f i n g e r t i p s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d t o do h i s work." There a r e two

m a j o r sources o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n : r e p o r t s from a f f i l i a t e d companies f o r w h i c h he

prepares b i l l i n g s and summaries o f f i n a n c i a l d a t a , and an IBM data p r o c e s s i n g center

 5-32

elsewhere i n the company. W i l l i n g to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y when workers i n h i s own

department make an e r r o r , Accountant must also bear the brunt of misinformation sup-

p l i e d by h i s extra-departmental sources:

•'Well, things that bother me considerably and cause stress, so to speak,, are
r i g h t now the amount of e r r o r s that we see other people doing i n the company, and
i n p a r t i c u l a r the data processing center downstairs. Of course, we r e a l i z e they
are new at t h e i r jobs, but they have been working f o r three or four months now,
and i t ' s g i v i n g us a t e r r i b l e headache. They duplicate the punching or cards,
d u p l i c a t e the running of the machines, or they omit vouchers or f a c t s , and send r
up statements to us that are incorrect — and these statements are sent out i n t o
the f i e l d - - t o customers.. You can't r e a l i z e the complications of something l i k e t h a t .

"Eventually t h e y ' l l f i n d i t out, and then supplementary statements are sent

out; but i n the meantime the world-wide a f f i l i a t e s have given us the reports based
on the previous statement that was wrong.

"Just by chance, yesterday I picked up two IBM cards to get the reference o f
a c e r t a i n customer. I wanted to see the documentation of the charge made, and on
the IBM cards they have the customer's name and. a code. Every customer has a
code. Lo and behold, I got the documentation, and i t was f o r an e n t i r e l y d i f -
f e r e n t customer. And only because the coding was wrong f o r the customer. The
machine i s going t o do what i t i s t o l d . I f i t i s given the wrong code, i t ' s
going to p r i n t some other customer.' So i t was made out to a B r a z i l i a n customer,
and i t should have been made out to a Japanese customer. Those statements have
already been run. Those statements are going to go to the customers i n c o r r e c t l y .
I t was j u s t by chance that I picked up these three cards, and two of them were
wrong.

"You j u s t can't r e l y on the work people are doing. So we went to the people
supposedly involved i n the mistake, and from what I got i t was that the number
was c a l l e d to her from across the room from someone e l s e , that she misunderstood
i t , o r the Wrong number was c a l l e d . That i s very, very poor work. They should
have on the desks a complete code of a l l the customers. There are many examples
l i k e t h a t . I t r e f l e c t s back on your job„ Something else that i s done r e f l e c t s
back on your'work."

Although i t remained f o r Accountant t o untangle the b i l l i n g mix-up, i n t h i s

case the e r r i n g department was at least w i l l i n g to accept the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r

own carelessness. Other f o c a l persons who must r e l y on information from r o l e senders

outside t h e i r departments are less f o r t u n a t e , as i l l u s t r a t e d by the f o l l o w i n g horror

s t o r y , t o l d by a superintendent of motor assembly.

"We were running out of a c e r t a i n kind of nut, a brass nut. So I asked an

engineer i f i t would be OK i f we used the same type of nut i n a s t e e l nut, of
which we had p l e n t y a v a i l a b l e . The engineer said 'yes, go ahead; we don't want
to have to shut down.' Later on we got complaints from the f i e l d that due to
the heat i n the exhaust that nut froze on the stud; and that every time they
 5-33

wanted to loosen up that choke and replace i t , the nut would be frozen and the
whole works had t o be pulled out. So when i t was checked back, we c a l l e d that
engineer down t o the o f f i c e and asked him i f he remembered my t a l k i n g to him
about that nut some time ago. The engineer said 'Yes, I remember something
about.' And I said 'Well, now we have complaints from the f i e l d on i t ; I
shouldn't have used them. And the engineer said 'Well, i f you were crazy enough
1

to take my word f o r i t - - y o u ' r e the guy who put them on--I d i d n ' t . You asked me,
and you t o l d me they were the same size nut and everything; I didn't t h i n k there
was any d i f f e r e n c e . I t ' s your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . "
1

I n f l e x i b i l i t y of Role Senders i n Other Departments

I n the above examples, r o l e senders outside h i s own department created problems

f o r the f o c a l person by e r r i n g or f a l l i n g behind schedule. A c r i s i s i n h i s own

department, however, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r e s s f u l to the person a t the departmental

boundary; he finds himself i n the p o s i t i o n of having to j u s t i f y t h i s delay or e r r o r

to extra-departmental r o l e senders who have an inadequate comprehension of the prob-

lems he faces on h i s job. IBM Converter, f o r example, speaks of his c l i e n t s ' i n -

tolerance o f delays r e s u l t i n g from computer problems too complicated f o r them to

understand or appreciate. Another f o c a l person complains of r o l e senders who can't

understand why i f t h e i r own department i s functioning on schedule, h i s i s not also:

p

"The inventory programs are set up on a 'most probable' kind of basis. In

other words, what you would expect probably two-thirds of the time. But i t seems
that i n our area we are operating i n the other one-third most of the time. There-
fore we have a problem of communicating to people why we i n the operating end are
running i n t o d i f f i c u l t y . And they, of course, think 'Why are you i n t r o u b l e .
I mean, we're f i n e . ' "

Time-consuming Co-ordinative A c t i v i t i e s

Even when each of several inter-dependent departments i s functioning smoothly

i n I t s own r i g h t , the boundary person may f i n d that co-ordinating h i s a c t i v i t i e s w i t h

those of surrounding departments i s t a x i n g D One departmental boundary respondent

complains o f the d i s r u p t i n g delays enforced on h i s own decisions by the f a c t t h a t :

"You've got t o get the views of a number of people i n order to resolve the
problem. There's a great number of meetings and sometimes i t ' s a problem to get
hold o f the person that you want to t a l k to i n order t o resolve the problem.
Again, h i s time i s not his own, so t o speak; someone else might be c a l l i n g a
meeting that he must attend. And so i t goes."
 5-34

Furthermore, when the department of a boundary person i n t e r a c t s w i t h a number of other

departments, he must expend a d d i t i o n a l time co-ordinating opinions w i t h i n h i s own de-

partment i n order f o r him to present (or at least be aware o f ) the "departmental

p o s i t i o n " i n dealing w i t h others. F a i l u r e t o achieve departmental unity can put him

on the spot i n h i s extra-departmental n e g o t i a t i o n s :

"My superior might attend a meeting, which I'm not attending, and quote
c e r t a i n figures which I'm at a loss to understand how he a r r i v e d a t . I t comes
back t o me from people who attended the meeting:: 'Well, t h i s i s n ' t what you
were t e l l i n g us. Your man said t h i s . So how about i t ? ' "

Conclusion

Each boundary c o n f l i c t takes i t s peculiar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the groups between

which the boundary i s i n t e r p o s e d — l i n e vs. s t a f f , company vs. suppliers, company vs.

customers, f i r s t vs. second s h i f t , etc. Generally, however, stresses at the boundaries

of e i t h e r companies or departments have as c e n t r a l elements problems of power and mis-

understanding.

Lacking formal power over r o l e senders outside h i s work u n i t , a person at the

boundary has a reduced a b i l i t y to guarantee t h a t the performance of these outsiders

w i l l be as he needs and wishes. I n compensation f o r t h i s lack of formal a u t h o r i t y ,

a boundary person r e l i e s heavily on the t r u s t , respect and l i k i n g he can generate

among the o u t s i d e r s . But these r e l a t i o n s are unusually d i f f i c u l t to create and main-

t a i n at the boundary; f o r the outsider, the f a i l i n g s of a person's u n i t are a l l too

e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d as f a i l u r e s of the person, thus weakening t h e i r a f f e c t i v e bonds

w i t h him. I n a s i m i l a r manner the d e f i c i e n c i e s of people outside the u n i t of the

boundary person are often taken as deficiencies on his part by members of h i s own

unit.

Such d i f f i c u l t i e s i n disentangling a boundary person's f a u l t s from his formal

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d i s t i n g u i s h i n g both from events i n which he i s an innocent and

powerless s p e c t a t o r , i l l u s t r a t e a general tendency f o r r o l e senders t o have an im-

p e r f e c t conception of boundary p o s i t i o n s . An a d d i t i o n a l consequence of such mis-

 5-35

understanding i s the f a i l u r e o f r o l e senders, especially i n other departments, t o

appreciate the urgency or necessity of a boundary person's requests t o them. They

are l i k e l y t o present him w i t h s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d demands and t o be i n t o l e r a n t i f these

demands are not met.

A person i n a boundary p o s i t i o n i s faced, therefore, w i t h a sizable body of

r o l e senders whose demands are l i k e l y t o be hard t o p r e d i c t and hard to c o n t r o l .

These demands w i l l be generated by the dynamics of other departments or organiza-

t i o n s , and w i l l s h i f t w i t h the v i c i s s i t u d e s o f those groups. Moreover, the demands

are l i k e l y t o be untempered by an adequate understanding by r o l e senders of what

such s h i f t s mean f o r the boundary person. Most d i f f i c u l t o f a l l , the boundary person

faced w i t h such problems has a t h i s disposal only l i m i t e d power resources w i t h which

he may attempt t o induce m o d i f i c a t i o n .

 CHAPTER SIX

THE STRESSES OF INNOVATIVE ROLES

C r e a t i v i t y always implies change. I n organizations the "accepted p o l i c y " i s

accepted by d e f i n i t i o n , and bolstered by precedent and Ideology. The newly created

p o l i c y must be j u s t i f i e d p r i o r t o I t s acceptance* Organizations vary considerably

I n t h e i r r e c e p t i v i t y t o change, but I t Is generally the change and not the status

quo which must be newly j u s t i f i e d .

Organizational theory has t r a d i t i o n a l l y emphasized those properties o f formal

organizations which tend t o preserve the status quo, and special emphasis has been

given t o the process of bureaucratization. I n a bureaucratic striicure, a c t i v i t i e s

are d i s t r i b u t e d i n a f i x e d way as o f f i c i a l d u t i e s , and behavior i s oriented

according t o r a t i o n a l l y determined r u l e s . The power t o give commands required for

the discharge o f these a c t i v i t i e s i s located i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f formal

authority. The demand f o r c o n t r o l and coordination I n bureaucratic structures

f r e q u e n t l y takes the form o f an Increasing emphasis on " r u l e s " as a means o f

ensuring r e l i a b l e behavior. But such r u l e s - o r i e n t e d behavior, necessarily based on

the requirements o f the past, may not be suited t o changing conditions. Merton

(1949) has summarized the processes whereby " e f f i c i e n t " bureaucracy may I n the face

of change l i m i t i t s own a d a p t a b i l i t y :

"An e f f e c t i v e bureaucracy demands r e l i a b i l i t y o f response and s t r i c t

devotion t o regulations. Such devotion t o the r u l e s leads t o t h e i r t r a n s -
formation I n t o absolutes; they are no longer conceived as r e l a t i v e t o a given
set of. purposes. This i n t e r f e r e s w i t h ready adaptation under special
c o n d i t i o n s not c l e a r l y envisaged by those who drew up the general r u l e s .
Thus the very elements which conduce toward e f f i c i e n c y i n general produce
I n e f f i c i e n c y i n s p e c i f i c instances. . . These very devices which Increase the
p r o b a b i l i t y o f conformance also lead t o an over-concern w i t h s t r i c t adherence
to r e g u l a t i o n s which induces t i m i d i t y , conservatism and technicism."

Such a d e s c r i p t i o n , taken by I t s e l f , would lead us to p r e d i c t f o r the bureau-

c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n adaptatlve a b i l i t i e s roughly comparable t o those o f the dinosaur.

Yet many bureaucracies show a remarkable v i a b i l i t y i n the face o f changing

 6-2

circumstances. Their v i a b i l i t y suggests t h a t even organizations which are largely

i I r

o r i e n t e d toward f i x e d rules may be equipped w i t h the resources f o r making decisions

which depart from these r u l e s or a l t e r them. I n bureaucratic organizations, such

departures from r u l e s are not u n i v e r s a l l y permitted, but appear Instead i n

p a r t i c u l a r ,organizational positions or sub-structures. Selznick (1943) singles out

" i n f o r m a l " organizational structures as the primary; Instrument for modifying or-

g a n i z a t i o n a l goals and p o l i c i e s i n the face of changing s i t u a t i o n a l demands. Ka.tz

and Kahn (1962)" emphasize the importance o f positions a t the organizational boundaries

as d i r e c t l y exposed to changing external requirements and as proposers of organization-

.i '
a l change. We w i l l see l a t e r (Chapter 9) t h a t organizational positions d i f f e r i n
the degree to which rules-oriented behavior i s expected of the occupants o f these

p o s i t i o n s , moreover, these differences i n expectations f o r rules-oriented be-

havior w i l l be shown l a t e r to be determined by the p o s i t i o n s of the focal person and

h i s associates i n a number of organizational sub»structures^

Our present focus, however, i s on those organizational roles which demand

innovative' solutions to non-routine problems. Such r o l e s complement the more

r o u t i n e l y rules-oriented roles of the r e s t o f an organization and increase the

adaptive a b i l i t i e s of the organization as a whole. I n a sense the Innovative roles

represent patterned organizational deviance. I t i s as i f the bureaucracy,

recognizing the dangers of i t s r i g i d i t y , attempted to b u i l d in. a capacity f o r change,

but to do so i n a way wholly consistent w i t h bureaucratic structure and organization.

What more compatible, therefore, than i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g and assigning to c e r t a i n

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s the functions of being f l e x i b l e , sensing changes i n the

outside environment, and i n i t i a t i n g appropriate responses i n the organization? To

a degree the s o l u t i o n works, but w i t h an almost I n e v i t a b l e cost. The persons who

f i l l these organizationally-created "change" r o l e s must become change-oriented i n

order to f u l f i l l the requirements of the r o l e . Not to do so would c o n s t i t u t e

f a i l u r e ; y e t i n doing so such persons are l i k e l y to f i n d themselves at loggerheads

 6-3

w i t h the remainder of the organization=~often including i t s l a r g e s t and most

powerful structurea.

To s e l e c t those roles f o r which demands f o r non-routine problem solving were

high, three coders reviewed the Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t f o r each f o c a l p o s i t i o n , and

rated on a nine-point scale the .importance to t h a t p o s i t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g

c r e a t i v e solutions to problems f o r which there were few organizational r u l e s or

precedents. The average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the three sets of r a t i n g s was .60.

For the present analysis, however, we have dichotomized a l l f o c a l positions

according t o the magnitude of the innovative demand. For t h i s s i m p l i f i e d task,

coders were i n agreement i n more than 90 per cent of the determinations. Among

the f o c a l persons coded as being, high i n the degree to which they were expected to

come up.with innovative solutions to problems were: two research p h y s i c i s t -

engineers; an IBM converter; a person assigned to develop new ways of handling

m a t e r i a l s ; a work-standards engineer; and two persons who make long-range forecasts

of company a c t i v i t i e s .

I f the assumption i s v a l i d that roles demanding innovative solutions t o

i

problems tend inherently to d i s r u p t the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l status quo, occupants of

such r o l e s are l i k e l y to f i n d themselves i n the tension-producing s i t u a t i o n of

being i n chronic c o n f l i c t w i t h those about them. The data i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s

i

indeed the case. F i r s t , t h a t the occupants o f such roles are expected to deviate

from o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms i s indicated by a c o r r e l a t i o n of -.43 (p-<.01) between

the importance of innovative decisions to a r o l e and the average expectation of

the r o l e senders w i t h regard to the f i r s t o f the normative expectation f a c t o r s ,

Rules O r i e n t a t i o n (see Chapter 3 ) . Second, the degree to which a given r o l e

demands innovative a c t i v i t y I s associated s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y w i t h both

the Index of Role C o n f l i c t ( p < } 0 1 ) and the amount of tension the r o l e occupant

experiences on the job (p-<^05) .

 I n s e r t Table 6-1 about here

As we see i n Table 1, persons i n innovative roles experience tension p a r t l y

but not e n t i r e l y as a function, o f the r o l e c o n f l i c t i n which they f i n d themselves.

Such r o l e s are c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n more o f t e n than not, but t h e i r c r e a t i v e demands

generate tension i n other ways as w e l l .

Of the various forms i n which we have encountered r o l e c o n f l i c t , two emerge

as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the h i g h - c o n f l i c t , innovative r o l e s — i n t e r - p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t

and i n t r a - r o l e c o n f l i c t . Each of these takes a special guise i n such cases. The

i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t s of the innovator are fought out around h i s proposals f o r

innovation, a kind o f continuing b a t t l e of new guard versus o l d . The i n t r a - r o l e

c o n f l i c t s o f the innovator stem from-his engagement and commitment t o the creative,

non-routine aspects o f h i s j o b — a n d h i s corresponding d i s i n t e r e s t and disdain f o r

the r o u t i n e or uncreative demands which are placed upon him; as a r e s u l t he

experiences a c o n f l i c t between these two categories o f r o l e requirements, both

l e g i t i m a t e and -unavoidable, but only one t r u l y ego-satisfying.

1. New Guard v s . Old Guard

I n almost every process o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change there I s the New Guard ad- c

vocating innovation and the Old Guard urging r e t e n t i o n o f the status quo. The

i n d i v i d u a l i n an i n h o v a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d r o l e casts h i s l o t . w i t h the New Guard, but

there i s always the Old Guard t o r e s i s t by v i r t u e o f i t s vested i n t e r e s t i n present

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l procedures. I n the interpersonal c o n f l i c t s between persons i n

innovative r o l e s and the o f t e n numerous and powerful Old Guard l i e many of the

stresses o f innovative r o l e s .

As IBM Converter says, one must i n industry i n e v i t a b l y deal w i t h others o f

d i s s i m i l a r o r i e n t a t i o n s , and one must recognize t h i s facts

 6-5

Table 6-1

Mean Tension Scores by

Innovative Requirements and Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

Innovatlve Requirements

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t High Low Total

High 5.37 -4.50 5.11 n. s

(19) (8) (27)

Low 4.75 3.72 4.04 n. s

(8) (18) (26)

Total 5.19 3.96 ^01

(27) (26)

n. s. n. s <.03

°P-values based'on J > t e s t comparisons o f high vs. low Innovative Requirements

w i t h i n rows.
°P-values' based on _t-test comparisons o f high vs. low degrees o f Role C o n f l i c t
w i t h i n columns.

i
 6-6

"The research worker who prefers t o haVe h i s own o f f i c e , work by him-

s e l f w i t h no i n t e r r u p t i o n s , c e r t a i n l y i s not going t o make a very capable
systems analyst. You have t o t r y anil p i c t u r e what others are t h i n k i n g ,
understand t h e i r s i t u a t i o n , t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i n t h e i r own problem,
understand t h e i r , problem and t r y t o devise your own answers and understand
why they are a c t i n g as they do."
Since i n introducing change one steps i n t o new areas, everyone else f e e l s

he has an equally v a l i d opinion about these new matters:

"This I s more usual than not. I f I converse about a problem w i t h

someone, a t l e a s t when they f i r s t hear the problem, they have t h e i r own s e t
of Ideas about how one should go about I t . So i n the work I do, I'd say
i t ' s more o f t e n than not t h a t people, a t l e a s t i n i t i a l l y , disagree w i t h
what I've done, or what I'm doing."

The opinions o f these "people," moreover, are more l i k e l y than not t o be i n

the d i r e c t i o n o f opposing change. 1

IBM Converter says o f how h i s programming o f

c e r t a i n jobs a f f e c t s the a t t i t u d e s o f his. c l i e n t s :

" I have the f e e l i n g i n some cases that there i s a reluctance to accept

the change. People are o f t e n r e l u c t a n t t o change f o r several reasons. They
may not f u l l y understand what i s proposed, although we have been t r y i n g t o
keep everyone aware o f the changes."

A business forecaster says o f h i s company's Old Guard:

"When we f i r s t set up our work, they used to be a Court o f I n q u i s i t i o n

r a t h e r than a committee and everything we said was tested by f i r e . They
challenged and t r i e d , to d i s c r e d i t , and, oh, they used t o beat us unmercifully."

The conservatism of the Old Guard's o r i e n t a t i o n , takes, according t o

respondents, one of two forms. I n i t s f i r s t form t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n i s toward the

very s t a t i s t i c a l precedents t h a t are f o r the person i n the c r e a t i v e , innovative

r o l e t h e point o f departure, not the terminus. A work standards engineer complains

thus about h i s superior's r e s t r i c t e d o r i e n t a t i o n :

"I've been around machines f o r about, w e l l , ever since I got out o f

school I've been I n work standards. I t ' s been about twelve or t h i r t e e n years.
And our supervisor, he was a s t a f f man. He was s t r i c t l y a chart man, a
graph man, and s t u f f l i k e t h a t . He couldn't see a l o t o f our l i t t l e problems."

In a second type o f confrontation w i t h the organizational Old Guard, the

Innovator must argue w i t h the "wise o l d " r o l e sender who thinks h i s experience

c o n s t i t u t e s b e t t e r grounds f o r a decision than any new information the innovator

 6-7

may conjure up:

Q: "What are the stresses about your job?"

A: "The f i r s t one i s the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t r e s u l t from people w i t h so-called

^experience' versus what I would c a l l more o b j e c t i v e analysis.
"For example, a person who has spent f o r t y years i n sales', who has
been a successful sales person i n several areas and now i s a major
manager o f a department here. Now he may never have spent any time t r y i n g
t o — l e t ' s s a y — a c t u a l l y working i n the f i e l d of connotative analysis of
the forces t h a t a f f e c t sales, b u t he has an inherent ' f e e l j ' as he c a l l s
it: ' I f e e l the market w i l l go so and s o /
"Frequently we f i n d t h a t h i s ' f e e l , because i t comes from a person
9

of such s t a t u r a l l e v e l i n the company, i s enough t o say t h a t t h i s ' f e e l 1

should overcome o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s .
" I t creates a problem I n diplomacy as w e l l as a problem In
communication and education to get across to the person who might take
a strong stand on the basis of t h i s so-called f e e l or experience."
11 5

T h i s i s a revealing statement, not only f o r what I t t e l l s of the c o n f l i c t

between Innovators and t h e i r opposition, but also f o r what I t suggests of the

q u a l i t i e s required t o cope w i t h the stresses o f the Innovative r o l e . One o f these

I s self-confidence, which I n the above quotation appears as undisturbed r e l i a n c e

on " o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s " and deprecation o f experience and i n t u i t i o n . This i s

t y p i c a l of focal- persons I n c r e a t i v e jobs, whose self-confidence scores i n the

face o f r o l e c o n f l i c t are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those o f persons chosen f o r

more r o u t i n e work (5.47 as compared t o 3.33, p*^\02).

Equally t y p i c a l i s the d i s t r u s t of others i n the organization, e s p e c i a l l y those

whose judgment l s nourished from other sources and other kinds of experience. People i n
!

c r e a t i v e p o s i t i o n s are less t r u s t i n g o f t h e i r r o l e senders, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f the

degree o f c o n f l i c t . I t I s l i k e l y that complex processes o f s e l e c t i o n are a t work

here, and also t h a t the person assigned t o an Innovative j o b f i n d s soon enough

t h a t he must l i s t e n t o h i s own voices and be prepared t o d i s t r u s t those o f others.

Interpersonal c o n f l i c t s of Old Guard and New, while omnipresent I n r o l e s which

demand innovative decisions, tend t o vary i n i n t e n s i t y as a f u n c t i o n of management's

o r i e n t a t i o n toward innovative functions. One focal person describes a case on

the more benign end of t h i s management-orientation dimension and provides an

 6-8

important clue as to what makes i t so;

Q: "Do you f e e l t h a t high management I n the corporation, even higher than

the d i v i s i o n , are s u f f i c i e n t l y attuned to the technical c r e a t i v i t y of
the people?"

A: "They are i n some places. I t h i n k they are here because a l o t o f the

managers have been engineers and have gradually gone up i n t o the ad-
m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . I n some companies, they're not--don't know
anything about the technical viewpoints of the people. They f i g u r e they
belong i n i v o r y towers."

Along these same l i n e s , data provided by Felz (1957) and Meltzer (1956) gathered

on a sample of research s c i e n t i s t s , demonstrate the Importance o f the influence

of management' o r i e n t a t i o n s on the p r o d u c t i v i t y of persons i n these c r e a t i v e l y arid

i n n o v a t i v e l y demanding r o l e s : These data indicate the importance t o s c i e n t i f i c

p r o d u c t i v i t y of the amount o f freedom and research funds a l i o t e d t o the s c i e n t i s t and

the amount of communication of the s c i e n t i s t w i t h h i s c h i e f . . Of t h i s contact

between the s c i e n t i s t and h i s chief, Pelz (1956, p. 35) says:

"We are becoming more and more convinced that t h i s a c t i v e i n t e r e s t i n

ongoing work, combined w i t h a hands-off policy concerning i t s d i r e c t i o n , i s
one o f the most f r u i t f u l things that a research c h i e f can do."

Persons i n the present study who occupy innovative r o l e s are exposed t o

environments generally more a l i e n than those included I n Pelz' data, which were

based on research organizations. I t seems l i k e l y that t h e i r r e a c t i o n i s t o seek

some i s o l a t i o n from t h e i r r o l e senders, especially under conditions o f c o n f l i c t .

This i s w e l l borne out by Table 2, which shows that persons I n creative r o l e s have
f .
s i g n i f i c a n t l y less communication w i t h t h e i r r o l e senders (4.19 compared t o 5.31),

and t h a t the communication o f persons i n such jobs i s more r e s t r i c t e d under

c o n d i t i o n s o f high c o n f l i c t .

I n s e r t Table 2 about here

The special problems o f a research-oriented innovator i n a non-research

 Table. 6-2

Mean Frequency of Communication by

Innovative Requirements and Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

Innovative Requirements
i

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t High Low Total

High 4.00 3.75 3.93 n. s

(19) (8) (27)

Low 4:71 6.00 5.64 <&5

(7) (18) (25)

Total 4.19 5.31 ^02

(26) (26)

n. s uOOl <.00l

*P-values based on j^-test comparisons of high. vs. low Innovative Requirements

w i t h i n rows.
2 '
*P-values based on _t-test comparisons o f high vs. low degrees of Role C o n f l i c t
w i t h i n columns.
 $-10

o r g a n i z a t i o n are v e i l described by one f o c a l person. I n h i s view, solutions

to problems are tolerated only so long as they are slanted I n a p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n :

"Too strong a stand a t t h i s point'makes you look negative i n a t t i t u d e

"to the people who are asking you to do the j o b . And i n our company negative
a t t i t u d e s , s h a l l I say, are quite unacceptable/
'*They l i k e 'realism,' b u t sometimes they aren't quite sure what they
mean by 'realism . . • A negative a t t i t u d e i s something that j u s t ' i s n ' t
1

accepted. • They j u s t don't l i k e I t and anything that has any connotation

of being a negative a t t i t u d e , even on a s u p e r f i c i a l basis, i s frowned
upon and rejected.;
'So we f i n d ourselves walking's t i g h t - r o p e , "

Handler (see Chapter 3) f i n d s himself i n an even more unsympathetic or-

i

g a n i z a t i o n a l environment. He i n s i s t s t h a t h i s ideas are never accepted by

management and stand l i t t l e chance o f being accepted i n the f u t u r e . His functions

are, i n h i s own words, "window dressing." The company has decided t h a t someone

should develop more " s c i e n t i f i c " approaches to m a t e r i a l handling, but balks a t

the prospect o f any substantial changes i n t h i s area. The organization has

o s t e n s i b l y committed i t s e l f t o " s c i e n t i f i c " p r i n c i p l e s of self-improvement, but

it-summarily r e j e c t s any suggestion o f change. Handler feels t h a t h i s s c i e n t i f i c -

a l l y - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t y i s p r i m a r i l y a gesture mdde by the company i n developing

a "progressive" public Image. He has i n s u f f i c i e n t power t o enforce any decisions

he makes and, i n the p a r t i c u l a r p l a n t to which he i s assigned, those i n charge

r e j e c t h i s recommendations--if they read them--on " t e c h n i c a l i t i e s . " Such a

managerial a t t i t u d e has p r e d i c t a b l y detrimental e f f e c t s on both the f o c a l

person and h i s subordinates:

" I t makes my job doubly d i f f i c u l t , because, slthough I t h i n k I have
m e n t a l l y reconciled myself t o t h i s s o r t o f t h i n g , personally I f e e l t h a t we
can go j u s t so. far. But when t h i s occurs, oh, I have a l i t t l e b i t o f
mental t u r m o i l . But a c t u a l l y i n a short period I t e l l m y s e l f — w e l l , that's
behind us now and what can we do f o r the troubles that are facing us i n
o t h e r areas.
"But t h a t i s not true w i t h my people. I t makes quite a personnel
problem. And I have people r i g h t now who f e e l they're not doing the work
they're capable of f o r t h i s reason. Because i t i s a f e e l i n g 6 n t h e i r p a r t r

t h a t the end r e s u l t i s always the' same. 'So l e t ' s do a sloppy j o b . Why

waste ,time?? To them i t i s wasting time," 1
 6-11

Handler here expresses another of the properties of the innovative r o l e

which we found frequently i n our sample o f f o c a l persons. He suggests t h a t h i s

"people," confronted w i t h c o n f l i c t and lack of success, become uncaring and

a p a t h e t i c ; the comfort of such a response, however, i s not f o r him. He must

t o l e r a t e instead a " b i t o f mental t u r m o i l . " Table 3 presents data which

support t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Apathy i s less c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f persons i n creative

roles",' i r r e s p e c t i v e of the l e v e l o f c o n f l i c t . But t h e i r apparent response t o

c o n f l i c t i s reduced apathy while the response of people on routine jobs i s a

s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n apathy score. People on routine jobs are more o f t e n

a p a t h e t i c i n the face o f c o n f l i c t than when t h e i r roles are c o n f l i c t - f r e e ;

people on innovative jobs show no such association o f apathy and c o n f l i c t ; i f

anything, they are less apathetic and more engaged i n the h i g h - c o n f l i c t c o n d i t i o n .

The iob has greater meaning i n the l i v e s of these people, probably because

c r e a t i v e jobs are i n t r i n s i c a l l y more meaningful and because persons come to

i,

such j o b s as a r e s u l t of'a long process o f s e l f - s e l e c t i o n and s e l e c t i o n by

others. (Mean score o f importance of the job i n r e l a t i o n to other areas o f l i f e

i s 5.46 f o r persons on innovative jobs, • 4.46 f o r persons on routine jobs, p<^.02).

,' , ; -

I n s e r t Table 3 about here

2. Creative vs. Uncreative A c t i v i t i e s

The second c o n f l i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f roles which demand c r e a t i v e , i n -

novative decisions i s o f the i n t r a - r o l e type. Expecially i n organizations

where r u l e s - o r i e n t e d routine a c t i v i t i e s predominate, innovative r o l e s c a r r y w i t h

them t h e i r share o f routine a c t i v i t i e s . Persons i n such roles generally express

g r e a t e r e g o - s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r more creative a c t i v i t i e s than w i t h the more

; • •

r o u t i n e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e demands made.upon them. One focal person describes such

7
 6-12

Table 6-3

Mean Apathy Scores by

Innovative Requirements and Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

Innovative Requirements

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t High Low Total

Hi*h 1.63 3.86 2.23 <.005

(19) (7) (26)

Low 2.14 2.71 2.54 n.s,

(7) (17) (24)

Total 1.77 3.04 <.02

(26) (24)

1.
P-values based -pri t - t e s t comparisons o f high vs. low Innovative Requirements
1

w i t h i n rows. None o f the comparisons between high and low r o l e c o n f l i c t reach

significance.
 6-13
s a t i s f a c t i o n I n the following terms:

" F i r s t o f a l l , there i s a good sense o f s a t i s f a c t o r y completion. You

have a\joh t h a t you complete. You may not. have a l l the tangible; things
t h a t you have when working w i t h your /hands or creating thjlngs i n t h a t
manner. But you do have something t h a t you have created—something that i s
t

continuing—something that i s e x i s t i n g . "

1
•i 1
- • i

Many o f the more routine demands on the innovators require a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

and human r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s they o f t e n f e e l they do hot possess. The substantive

complaints o f r o l e senders about the innovators are heavily weighted w i t h

references t o t h e i r inadequate performance o f t h e i r -non-innovative, r o u t i n e

activities. These focal persons are seen by t h e i r associates as e i t h e r not

spending enough time on these a c t i v i t i e s or not performing them up t o organi-

z a t i o n standards. One respondent says i n general:

"There are people who are h i g h l y p r o f i c i e n t i n technical things and

can't get along w i t h others. There's a place f o r them I n the i v o r y
tower, i n t h e o r e t i c a l work where they wouldn't have too, much contact. But
the way things are set up now, why you, do have t o have some r e l a t i o n s w i t h
o,ther people. This i s an important f a c t o r . " '

Interpersonal s k i l l s may be closely t i e d t o innovative success or f a i l u r e .

Another respondent thus describes the necessary r e p e r t o i r e o f a n c i l l a r y skills

he must possess:

"There are a l o t o f things along t h i s l i n e : being able t o speak

b e t t e r and get along I n groups b e t t e r and learning t o w r i t e b e t t e r and
convince p e o p l e — s h a l l we say convince people against t h e i r w i l l , o r a t
l e a s t guide them—or learn t o influence people's t h i n k i n g on the way they
do things."

Conspicuous among these interpersonal s k i l l s are the a b i l i t y t o communicate

l u c i d l y t o people who do not t h i n k I n the same terms, and the a b i l i t y t o " s e l l "

one's ideas f o r c e f u l l y . Both a b i l i t i e s become especially c r i t i c a l when the

person i n the innovative job i s i n a low power p o s i t i o n or Is facing frequent

c o n f l i c t s o f the New Guard vs. Old Guard type. IBM Converter says:

"There have been times when I f e e l they don't understand I t . And t h i s

g e t s back t o the problem o f the closed class I n the o r i e n t a t i o n . I t may be
t h a t they have not y e t reached the s t a t e o f proper o r i e n t a t i o n as f a r as
computer a b i l i t y I s concerned t o understand work w i t h a computer so they are
 6-14

able t o understand what you are t a l k i n g about* 11

People i n c r e a t i v e p o s i t i o n s are l i k e l y t o have d i f f i c u l t y , i n t u r n , i n

understanding the language of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s :

Q: "Are there any p a r t i c u l a r people you have t o deal w i t h whom there i s a

greater d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g c l e a r w i t h ? "

A: " W e l l — I t h i n k when I have dealings w i t h anything concerning a proposal

(which t h i s f o c a i person regards as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n ) I , uh—•
t h i s i s not so much a matter o f communications as i t i s a f a i l u r e on my
p a r t t o grasp what I t i s t h a t the people who want the proposal want.
I don't seem t o t a l k t h e i r language. " 11

The necessity o f being able t o s e l l one's ideas t o unsympathetic others i s described

by one respondent as follows:

"I'm not f e e l i n g secure because I don't t h i n k my way o f doing t h i s Is

appreciated by my superior. My i n c l i n a t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s , the sort o f
work that I would l i k e t o do aren't appreciated by my superiors. , There Is
the need c b h t l n u a l l y t o s e l l what one does of what one wants, t o do."

While the necessity o f developing the s k i l l s o f interpersonal communication'and

salesmanship i s approached by some o f these respondents w i t h i n t e r e s t , the

i
necessity o f handling very r o u t i n e administrative matters i s l a r g e l y regarded by

them w i t h d i s t a s t e . Two respondents phrase ideas along these l i n e s as f o l l o w s :

" I might want t o go as f a r as department head, but I don't aspire t o be

I n t o p management and get I n t o a l l the red-tape type o f things."

"Well, t h i s i s very subjective, but my personal f e e l i n g i s t h a t I

wouldn't want t o have an assignment where I was i n routine'work regardless of
the degree o f e f f i c i e n c y required.. I f it,were purely r o u t i n e , I,wouldn t want ff

I t and I would, p o s s i b l y — e v e n i f i t were a high l e v e l j o b i n a. well-known

company—I would say 'the h e l l w i t h i t . ' I would rather go inr.o business f o r
myself s e l l i n g shoes than do a high l e v e l j o b on a routine basis. 11

We i n t e r p r e t these remarks as emphasizing the innovator's deprecation o f

r o u t i n e r a t h e r than any l a c k o f ambition. Creative jobs tend to be higher i n rank

than r o u t i n e jobs, and the occupants of creative jobs are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than

others i n m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s (mean 5.64 compared t o 4.35 f o r persons i n r o u t i n e

jobs, p.<.05).

Complaints o f f o c a l persons about t h e i r r o u t i n e administrative a c t i v i t i e s

 6-15

usually are directed a t the interference of these routine a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e i r

more c r e a t i v e e f f o r t s . The most prevalent o f these interference complaints i s that

the amount of time consumed iri routine matters reduces'the time a v a i l a b l e f o r the

p r e f e r r e d creative a c t i v i t i e s . Other persons i n creative jobs complain that

having t o do routine a f f a i r s destroys the c o n t i n u i t y of t h e i r creative a c t i v i t y . •

One respondent explains t h a t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions r e s t r i c t h i s autonomy.

When he works I n h i s own specialized decision-making area, he i s the a u t h o r i t y , but

when he a c t s I n h i s capacity of administrator, he must follow.the d i c t a t e s of

others. His i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s supported by- the general f i n d i n g that persons i n

c r e a t i v e jobs a t t r i b u t e less power to t h e i r r o l e senders. I n p a r t , t h i s may be a

kind of defensive deprecation. Certainly the r o l e senders of most persons on

c r e a t i v e jobs have power enough to create c o n f l i c t and tension. I t i s plausible,

however, t h a t the.innovative and creative a c t i v i t i e s should be less susceptible to

d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e by r o l e senders who are o f t e n outside the c i r c l e of special

knowledge .and technique which i s a t the core of the creative job.

Conclusion

I n a b u r e a u c r a t l c a l l y oriented organization a person whose -role demands

i n n o v a t i v e , creative decisions to non-routine problems i s l i k e l y to be confronted

by both i n t r a - r o l e and interpersonal c o n f l i c t s .

i.

His i n t r a - r o l e c o n f l i c t s a r i s e because an organizational p o s i t i o n which

demands non-routine a c t i v i t i e s i s l i k e l y to Include many routine a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

a c t i v i t i e s as" w e l l . A person i n such a p o s i t i o n f i n d s himself proceeding-on one

hand along administrative paths governed by e x i s t i n g r u l e s and a t the same time

1
i
being expected to be oriented toward innovative decisions which run counter to

these same r u l e s . Moreover, persons i n creative roles are frequently expected to

posses a n c i l l a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and human r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s I n which they may find

themselves l a c k i n g . Even i f these a n c i l l a r y s k i l l s are possessed i n s u f f i c i e n t

 6-16

measure, t h e i r required a p p l i c a t i o n i s time consuming and d i s r u p t s the c o n t i n u i t y

of the more creative a c t i v i t i e s . So i t seems, a t l e a s t , to the focal person,

A s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t between routine a c t i v i t y and r u l e s - o r i e n t a t i o n on one hand,

and i n n o v a t i v e behavior on the other, appears on an interpersonal l e v e l . Persons

•t

occupying innovative positions, i n b a s i c a l l y conservative, rules-oriented o r g a n i -

zations f i n d themselves i n open c o n f l i c t w i t h those who have a vested i n t e r e s t i n

the s t a t u s quo. Each change suggested by the innovator must be j u s t i f i e d f o r

persons who oppose such changes on the grounds t h a t precedent i s lacking or that

the changes v i o l a t e t h e i r own personal "experience." The innovator i s thus

placed i n an.interpersonal s i t u a t i o n where important others regard him as a threat

to t h e i r s e c u r i t y and place upon him the burden o f continuing, defense and

justification, '

Such innovative roles', while c o n f l i c t u a l and tension-producing f o r the

persons occupying, them, are nonetheless f u n c t i o n a l f o r the organization as a

whole, .They provide adaptive f l e x i b i l i t y f o r what might, otherwise be a dangerously

• • •

r i g i d bureaucratic structure. The "deviance ,f

of the" innovative r o l e i s thereby

patterned by organizational demands, and there i s some acknowledgement of t h i s f a c t .

There i s a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between the innovative demands made of a person and

the amount o f Rules-oriented behavior expected o f him by h i s r o l e senders. In

A

short, every organization i s faced w i t h the double problems o f maintaining i t s

i n t e g r i t y i n the face of change and yet adapting t o these changing circumstances.

These two i n i m i c a l goals tend t o become embodied i n d i f f e r e n t sets o f r o l e s , and a

c o n f l i c t between goals i s thereby transformed i n t o an i n t e r - r o l e or inter-group

conflict.
 Chapter 7

RANK AND STATUS

R e l a t i n g status to job adjustment i s l i k e s p l i c i n g rope. At the onset, one

holds i n each hand something which appears t o be an e n t i t y . Yet before proceeding

to s p l i c e , one must separate the strands of each rope so that they may be properly

joined. Status and job adjustment likewise seem at f i r s t glance t o be u n i t a r y con-

cepts. On closer examination, however, each i s a complex i n t e r t w i n i n g of smaller

units. To seek only the o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p between status and job adjustment would

neglect the p o s s i b i l i t y of a n . e f f i c i e n t s p l i c e , i n favor of tying a single and less

durable knot i n the ropes. I t i s preferable to ask more s p e c i f i c questions; the

association between status and adjustment i s l i k e l y to vary as a f u n c t i o n of what

aspects, o f status and c r i t e r i a of adjustment one happens to be t a l k i n g about.

Three approaches can be distinguished i n the attempts to i n t e r p r e t empirical

c o r r e l a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l status and behavior.

1. The f i r s t of these approaches concentrates on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of i n d i v i d u a l s at various status l e v e l s . Applied to organizational s t a t u s , t h i s ap-

proach would lead us to ask what types of people are most l i k e l y to be selected i n t o

high s t a t u s p o s i t i o n s , rather than what demands are made of i n d i v i d u a l s i n high status

positions .

2. A second approach emphasized the importance of remote empirical correlates

of status measures, and provides a r i c h complex of unmeasured intervening variables.

A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l status and mental health, f o r example, i s

i n t e r p r e t e d by reference to " s o c i a l d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n " i n lower class ecological areas,

or the prevalence of c e r t a i n psychosomatic disorders i n high status jobs i s explained

on the basis of the greater " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " which these jobs e n t a i l .

 7-2

Both these approaches depend on categorizing.of e i t h e r people or s i t u a t i o n s

thought t o t y p i f y high and low status.

3. A t h i r d o r i e n t a t i o n t i e d t o the study o f considerably smaller s o c i a l u n i t s ,

plunges more d i r e c t l y i n t o the t h e o r e t i c a l sine qua non of status-evaluative differences.

"High vs. low," "successful vs. unsuccessful." "powerful vs. weak," "important vs.

unimportant," "superior vs. s u b o r d i n a t e " — a l l are evaluative d i s t i n c t i o n s . I t is

the e v a l u a t i v e connotations i n t r i n s i c to status d i f f e r e n t i a l s t o which the t h i r d

approach i s addressed.

Any association between status and behavior i s p o t e n t i a l l y understandable i n terms

of one--or a l l - - of these three approaches. The problem o f which approach and which

i n t e r v e n i n g variables.to invoke i n the explanation of any p a r t i c u l a r status-behavior

r e l a t i o n s h i p i s , l i k e the problem of invoking i n t e r v e n i n g variables g e n e r a l l y , t o

be solved by reference to both the parsimony and t o the conceptual and e m p i r i c a l

p l a u s i b i l i t y of the explanation generated. When, therefore,, the f o l l o w i n g pages

report a number o f associations between status measures on one hand and measures of

job adjustment on the other, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be regarded as only a few of

many admissible explanations.

Status and Stress. The n a t i o n a l survey and i n t e n s i v e studies employed somewhat

d i f f e r e n t measures of status as required by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two samples

and the l i m i t a t i o n s of the two methods.

I n t h e n a t i o n a l survey, male wage-and-salary workers were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o s i x

groups on the basis of t h e i r occupational s t a t u s :

1. P r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c a l
2. Non-self-employed managers
3. C l e r i c a l , sales
4. Craftsmen, foremen
5. Machine operators
6. U n s k i l l e d laborers and service workers

L i s t e d one a f t e r the other, these occupational categories do not represent a con-

tinuum i n the usual sense of t h i s term. They vary along many q u a n t i t a t i v e and

q u a l i t a t i v e dimensions—prestige, income, the nature of the work involved, and the

 7-3

"way of l i f e " implied by a given occupation.

Such groupings, while s u i t a b l e f o r our representative n a t i o n a l sample, f a i l e d

t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e f i n e l y enough among respondents i n the intensive study; most f o c a l

respondents were e i t h e r managers or foremen, w i t h a few i n the professional-technical

group. As a r e s u l t , a somewhat f i n e r set of categories was applied to these repondents,

w i t h s t a t u s being treated i n terms of organizational rank. Four levels were d i s t i n -

guished:

Top Management: Section heads, assistant managers of smaller departments;

top four levels

Middle Management: Section heads, assistant managers of smaller departments

or d i v i s i o n s , t e c h n i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c s p e c i a l i s t s

Second-level supervisors: General foremen and superintendents, second and

t h i r d l e v e l supervisors i n production u n i t s

Foremen: F i r s t - l e v e l supervisors, d i r e c t supervisors of hourly workers

While the occupational status code ranks respondents according to t h e i r r e l a t i v e

prestige I n the eyes of the population at large (see NORC, 1947), the organizational

rank code takes as i t s frame of reference the point of view of others i n the respondents 1

p a r t i c u l a r companies. Thus, while the p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l group has been shown to

be the highest status group of the s i x I n the view of the general population, the

p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l people i n the i n t e n s i v e study held p o s i t i o n s considerably

below the "top management" group on a number of status-relevant dimensions—prestige

i n the company, income, power, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and others.

1. Self-reported h e a l t h . Among those studies which have adopted the t h i r d

approach t o status-behavior r e l a t i o n s h i p s , focusing on the evaluative aspects of

status rankings, i s the work of Kasl and French (1962). I n studies of two large

companies, they found s k i l l l e v e l to be i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to frequency of v i s i t s to

the company dispensary. Longitudinal data i n these same two companies also revealed

a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between status and h e a l t h , as indicated by frequency of dis-

pensary v i s i t s . Men who moved to jobs of higher status showed decreased frequency

of dispensary v i s i t s ; men who moved lower i n the status hierarchy increased the
 7-4

frequency o f such v i s i t s .

Data from the present n a t i o n a l survey i n d i c a t e a s i m i l a r negative association

between s t a t u s and a global i n d i c a t o r of physical health. The i n d i c a t o r i n t h i s

case was t h e respondent's report o f the general state of his physical health as

" e x c e l l e n t , " " f a i r , " or "poor." Table 1 presents the percentage of respondents r e -

p o r t i n g themselves i n excellent vs. p o o r - f a i r health f o r each of the s i x occupational

status l e v e l s . The table indicates that respondents r e p o r t i n g themselves t o be i n

e i t h e r f a i r or poor health are most l i k e l y t o be found i n low-status occupational

groups. Figure 1, which p l o t s some of the percentages given i n Table 1, suggests

f u r t h e r t h a t the biggest difference i n s e l f - r e p o r t e d health occurs between white-

c o l l a r workers and those whose positions are more c l o s e l y t i e d to b l u e - c o l l a r a c t i v i -

t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g foremen). T h i r t y - f o u r per cent o f the b l u e - c o l l a r respondents report

themselves t o be i n something less than excellent h e a l t h , while only 137* of the white-

c o l l a r workers do so.

I n s e r t Table—1—about here

I n s e r t Figure~V about here

The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n placed on t h e i r data by Kasl and French appears equally ap-

p l i c a b l e t o the negative status-health r e l a t i o n s h i p j u s t reported. Invoking self-

esteem as the p r i n c i p a l intervening v a r i a b l e , Kasl and French hypothesize t h a t :

"Occupants of high status jobs w i l l have a favorable objective public

i d e n t i t y , that i s , high o b j e c t i v e public"esteem. Objective public esteem
l a r g e l y determines subjective public esteem, which i n t u r n strongly a f f e c t s
self-esteem. The occupant o f a'high status job w i l l also tend to have a
favorable self-concept; that is,"he w i l l have high self-esteem because he w i l l tend tc
perceive himself i n the more h i g h l y valued regions "of ; h i s . .occupational sub-identity"
(1962, p.76).

The f i n a l step i n t h i s sequence of reasoning by Kasl and French i s t h a t , as two

:Lr\-" • V - s of. -:*;••.':;•"' I-w. ".:-.
1
:-•*.* '.. ' ^ "r '' > l l
•' : * \ " '
i n d i c a t o r s o f mental h e a l t h , self-esteem and frequency o f medical dispensary w i l l
. '' . ;e l r : •. •
:
'Vh ;;;'.).:.•. ; -MIL, ; " .• » . . • r 1

themselves be r e l a t e d . A d d i t i o n a l data, including an independent measure o f s e l f -

esteem, substantiates some of the steps i n the sequence. Their a d d i t i o n a l data

 7-5

Table 7-1

Self-Reported Health as a Function o f Occupational Status

(National Survey)

% Reporting % Reporting
Themselves i n Themselves i n
Occupation "Excellent Health
11
"Poor" or " F a i r " Health N

Professional,

technical 83% 17% 52

Managerial 97% 3% 37

Clerical,

sales 85% 15% 60

Craftsmen,

foremen 65% 35% 85

Operatives 67% 33% 81

Unskilled,
service 65% 35% P<TOOI 49
 7-6

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Professional, Managerial Clerical, Craftsmen, Operatives Unskilled,

^ Technical _. ^ • Sales jy^ Foremen Service J

WHITE-COLLAR BLUE-COLLAR

Figure 1.

Respondents Reporting Themselves i n Only " F a i r " or "Poor"

Health as a Function* of Occupational Status
(National Survey)
 7-7

demonstrate a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between status and self-esteem, and a negative cor-

r e l a t i o n between self-esteem and frequency of dispensary v i s i t s . Status, self-esteem

and a general i n d i c a t o r of physical h e a l t h are bound thereby i n t o an i n t e r - r e l a t e d

network, p a r t of which i s r e p l i c a t e d employing a d i f f e r e n t health measure--in the

-i

present n a t i o n a l survey.

2. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . A number of previous studies have demonstrated positive

associations between general s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the j o b , occupational status (Gurin,

V e r o f f , F e l d , 1960), and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rank (Mann & Pelz, 1948; Katz & Kahn, 1952;

Morse, 1953). While n e i t h e r ttie present n a t i o n a l sample nor intensive study data

revealed any status-associated differences i n the l e v e l of respondents' reported

job s a t i s f a c t i o n , the n a t i o n a l survey produced some provocative findings w i t h respect

to the s t a b i l i t y of Job s a t i s f a c t i o n as a function of occupational d i f f e r e n c e s .

National survey respondents were presented a question asking, "Compared t o the way

you f e l t when you f i r s t started working on t h i s j o b , would you say you f e e l less

s a t i s f i e d , more s a t i s f i e d , or about as s a t i s f i e d as you used to be?" Figure 2 pre-

sents the -percentage of respondents i n each of the s i x occupational status groups

i n d i c a t i n g that they had become e i t h e r more or less s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r jobs. Read-

ing down the r i g h t side of t h i s f i g u r e one would be l i k e l y to form the impression

t h a t , w i t h the exception of the professional group, increases i n s a t i s f a c t i o n were

p o s i t i v e l y associated w i t h occupational status. But reading down the l e f t s i d e , one

could e q u a l l y w e l l conclude that status was p o s i t i v e l y associated w i t h changes i n

the "dissatisfied" direction. Both impressions would be equally c o r r e c t , as the

f i g u r e s i n Table 2 i n d i c a t e . The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n which subsumes these apparently

paradoxical conclusions i s , as demonstrated by Table 2, that as occupational status

increases, the s t a b i l i t y of ones o v e r a l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n decreases. High status

..... _
| _

respondents are more l i k e l y than those of lower status to e x h i b i t changes i n s a t i s -

f a c t i o n i n both negative and p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n s .

c
Among respondents i n the lowest

status l e v e l s ^ the majority.(66%) report no change i n t h e i r l e v e l of job s a t i s -

 7-8

f a c t i o n over the years, while w i t h the highest status respondents, the m a j o r i t y

(647«) r e p o r t j u s t the opposite.

~~--------
i I n s e r t Figure 2 about- here

I n s e r t Table 2" about here

Why should the j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .of respondents high i n occupational status be

more l a b i l e ? One answer t o , t h i s question may be found i n some e a r l i e r survey data

presented by Gurin e t a l . (1960). The authors I n t e r p r e t t h e i r data by reference

to a d i s t i n c t i o n between ego" and " i n t r i n s i c " job motivations. "Ego" motivations

n

are defined as those which represent "a personal involvement i n the j o b , some expres-

sion of the s e l f i n the j o b , " — f o r example, a t t i t u d e s toward the kind o f work one does

and the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r expressing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and competence. " E x t r i n s i c " job

motivations are those centering around more mundane matters: money, job s e c u r i t y

and working conditions. Having o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n by coding indica-

t i o n s of respondents as t o what they l i k e d or d i s l i k e d about t h e i r jobs, Gurin e t a l . 1

report t h a t "occupational status i s strongly ( p o s i t i v e l y ) related t o the amount of

e g o - g r a t i f i c a t i o n s i n the work, and the importance of such g r a t i f i c a t i o n s as things

one looks f o r i n a j o b . " A second f i n d i n g , presented almost i n c i d e n t a l l y by Gurin-

et a l . , i s also relevant to the present data. I n coding responses t o a c l a s s i c

tie

question about j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , Gurin employed an equally classic set of coding

categories (very s a t i s f i e d , s a t i s f i e d , n e u t r a l , d i s s a t i s f i e d ) , adding one unusual

category--"ambivalent." The "ambivalent" response was most t y p i c a l o f respondents

who mentioned seeking only "ego" s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n t h e i r jobs. Putting together

these two p o s i t i v e associations—between status and the seeking of ego s a t i s f a c t i o n

on the j o b , and between the seeking of ego s a t i s f a c t i o n s and ambivalence i n job

s a t i s f a c t i o n — o n e would.be led t o conclude that the greatest ambivalence and-:instability

i n r e p o r t e d job s a t i s f a c t i o n would be found among workers high i n occupational status, .

^"Takihg i n t o consideration a l l the things about your j o b , how s a t i s f i e d or

d i s s a t i s f i e d are you w i t h i t ? "
 7-9

P r o f e s s i o n a l , Technical

Managerial

C l e r i c a l , Sales
) _

3
C r a f t smen, Foremen

Operatives

Unskilled', Service
i +
\
20% 20% 4o% 3U%

Occupation Percentage of Percentage of .

Respondents, Reporting Respondents Reporting
Themselves Less ; Themselves More
Satisfied Satisfied

Figure 2. Changes i n Job S a t i s f a c t i o n , as a Function of Occupational Status

(National Survey)
 7-10

Table 7-2

Percentage of Respondents Reporting No Change

In Job S a t i s f a c t i o n as a Function o f Occupational Status
(National Survey)

Percentage Reporting
Occupation No Change

Professional, Technical 36%

Managerial 27%

C l e r i c a l , Sales 34%

Craftsmen, Foremen 41%

Operatives 50%

U n s k i l l e d , Service 66%
 7-11

a conclusion which i s borne o u t by t h e d a t a i n Table 2. I n s h o r t , as one i n v e s t i -

gates r e p o n d e n t s p r o g r e s s i v e l y h i g h e r i n occupational s t a t u s , one deals w i t h indivi-

d u a l s whose a s p i r a t i o n s f o r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y g r e a t and whose c r i t e r i a

for a s a t i s f y i n g j o b are increasingly s o p h i s t i c a t e d . As a r e s u l t , the j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n

o f these i n d i v i d u a l s i s l i k e l y t o be l e s s s t a b l e over time t h a n t h a t o f persons i n

lower s t a t u s o c c u p a t i o n s .

3* Tension. The above d a t a on s e l f - r e p o r t e d h e a l t h and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n serve

to amplify a p o i n t made i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r : the d i r e c t i o n

o f a s s o c i a t i o n between s t a t u s and j o b a d j u s t m e n t depends on t h e p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n

o f a d j u s t m e n t one happens t o be t a l k i n g about. O c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s has been shown

t o be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e h e a l t h c r i t e r i o n and n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h

t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a t t i t u d e s towards ones j o b .

Such v a r i a t i o n s i n s t a t u s - a d j u s t m e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e encountered a g a i n when

we move f r o m t h e c r i t e r i a o f r e p o r t e d h e a l t h and s a t i s f a c t i o n , t o t h a t o f e x p e r i e n c e d

tension. D a t a from b o t h the n a t i o n a l survey and t h e i n t e n s i v e study i n d i c a t e t h a t

e x p e r i e n c e d t e n s i o n and s t r a i n i n c r e a s e s m o n o t o n i c a l l y as a f u n c t i o n o f s t a t u s .

T a b l e 3 p r e s e n t s t h e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and t h e

t e n s i o n i n d e x o f t h e n a t i o n a l sample, and a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e n s i o n and

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rank i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 8b f o r t h e i n t e n s i v e study.

I n s e r t T a b l e "3 about here

N a t i o n a l Survey: Some I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s . Respondents i n h i g h status

o c c u p a t i o n s a r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r e c e d i n g d a t a , more l i k e l y than low s t a t u s

.respondents t o :

--experience high tension w i t h respect to their jobs

--be unstable i n t h e i r o v e r a l l f e e l i n g s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h these j o b s , and

- - f e e l t h a t they a r e i n e x c e l l e n t p h y s i c a l h e a l t h .

E a r l i e r c h a p t e r s have i n d i c a t e d t h r e e types o f j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h a r e

likely t o prove s t r e s s f u l : h a v i n g a j o b w h i c h demands f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t s outside

 7-12

Table 7-3

Mean Job-Related T e n s i o n
as a F u n c t i o n o f O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s
(National Survey)

Occupation Mean Tension N

Professional, Technical 3.3 52

Managerial 3.0 37

C l e r i c a l , Sales 2.9 60

C r a f tsmen, Foremen 2.7 86

Operatives 2.3 81

Unskilled, Service 1.9 49

p < C 001
 7-13

ones d e p a r t m e n t , b e i n g i n a j o b w h i c h demands f r e q u e n t extra-company b u s i n e s s con-

t a c t s , and h a v i n g a j o b which demands i n n o v a t i o n and c r e a t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g .

W h i l e a l l t h r e e v a r i a b l e s were assessed i n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , o n l y a measure o f

t h e two boundary v a r i a b l e s was attempted i n t h e n a t i o n a l survey. No a s s o c i a t i o n was

found between o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and c r o s s i n g o f d e p a r t m e n t a l boundaries, b u t Table 4

i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and frequency

o f c o n t a c t s o u t s i d e o f ones company. A b r e a k i n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p occurs o n l y w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l group. I n t h e p r e s e n t sample, the b u l k o f

t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n I s c o n s t i t u t e d by t e c h n i c i a n s who perform s p e c i a l i z e d functions

i n b u s i n e s s p o s i t i o n s t h a t demand few extra-company c o n t a c t s .

I n s e r t Table 4 about h e r e

T h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l group i s a l s o somewhat d e v i a n t w i t h r e g a r d t o the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , described

i n Table 5. While the data suggest a g e n e r a l l y p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between s t a t u s

and s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , two o c c u p a t i o n a l groups c o n s t i t u t e e x c e p t i o n s to this

trend: t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l and, reasonably enough, the group which i n c l u d e s

foremen.

I n s e r t Table 5 about here

The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s s u p e r v i s o r y v a r i a b l e a t t h i s p o i n t suggests t h a t

s u p e r v i s i o n , l i k e the c r o s s i n g o f company b o u n d a r i e s * makes f o r a s t r e s s f u l j o b

and h e l p s e x p l a i n t h e s t a t u s - s t r e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s i s indeed the case, b u t

a l i n k i n t h i s c a u s a l c h a i n remains t o be d e m o n s t r a t e d — n a m e l y , t h a t the p o s s e s s i o n

o f s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s i t s e l f associated w i t h experienced job stress. Such

tic

a demonstration i s g i v e n i n Tables 6-and 7, w h i c h p r e s e n t the a s s o c i a t i o n s between

the amount o f s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and two measures o f experienced stress.

*Data a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r respondents i n t h e n a t i o n a l survey o n l y , s i n c e t h e r e was i n s u f -

f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n i n t h e s u p e r v i s o r y v a r i a b l e i n . the i n t e n s i v e study sample; a l l i n -
t e n s i v e s t u d y respondents were s u p e r v i s o r s .
 7-14

Table 7-4

Frequency o f Contacts Beyond Company Boundary as a

Function o f Occupational Status
(National Survey)

Occupation Mean Frequency N

Professional Technical 2.4 53

Managerial 4.1 37

Clerical, Sales 3.3 60

Craftsmen, Foremen • 2.1 86

Operatives 1.7 81

U n s k i l l e d , Service 1.5 49

p<.001
 Table 7-5

Percentage o f Respondents w i t h S u p e r v i s o r y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
as a F u n c t i o n o f O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s
' ( N a t i o n a l Survey)

Occupation Percentage N

Professional, Technical 60% 53

Managerial 89% 37

Clerical, Sales 35% 60

Craftsmen, Foremen 51% 86

Operatives 23% 83

Unskilled, Service 12% 50

p-=^.001
 7-X6

Three degrees o f s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n these tables:

1. Respondent has no s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

2. Respondent s u p e r v i s e s o n l y s u b o r d i n a t e s who themselves have no subordinates

3. Respondent has more t h a n one l e v e l o f s u b o r d i n a t e s beneath him, i . e . , h i s

d i r e c t s u b o r d i n a t e s a l s o have s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

I n s e r t Table"6 about here

- I n s e r t Table 7 about here

Table 6 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a respondent's l e v e l of tension i n c r e a s e s ? d i r e c t l y as

a f u n c t i o n o f the amount o f s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y he has. A similar positive

a s s o c i a t i o n between s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and e x p e r i e n c e d stress Is found

i n Table 7, w h i c h i s based on coded responses t o the q u e s t i o n : "Some people have

problems a t work t h a t cause them v e r y l i t t l e w o r r y ,\ w h i l e o t h e r s have t h e k i n d o f

problems t h a t w o r r y them a good d e a l . What a r e t h e problems i n your work t h a t t e n d

t o w o r r y you most o f t e n ? "

 7-17

Table 7-6

Mean T e n s i o n Scores, as a F u n c t i o n o f Amount o f S u p e r v i s o r y Responsibility

( N a t i o n a l Survey)

Supervisory Responsibility Mean Tension N^

Respondent has more than one

l e v e l below h i m i n s u p e r v i s o r y
chain-of-command 3.5 56

Respondent s u p e r v i s e s o n l y
..immediate s u b o r d i n a t e s 2.9 99

Respondent has no s u p e r v i s o r y
responsibility 2.4 218

P-<001
 Table 7-7

Percentage o f Respondents R e p o r t i n g Job W o r r i e s , as a

Function qf Supervisory R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
( N a t i o n a l Survey)

Supervisory Responsibility Percentage R e p o r t i n g N

i Job Worries

Respondent has more than one

l e v e l below i n the supervisory
c h a i n - o f - c ommand 72% 56

Respondent s u p e r v i s e s o n l y
immediate s u b o r d i n a t e s 66% 97

Respondent has no s u p e r v i s o r y
responsibility 44% 216

p<J)01
 7-19

I n t e n s i v e Study: Some I n t e r v e n i n g V a r i a b l e s . L i k e o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , o r g a n i -
z a t i o n a l r a n k as measured i n the i n t e n s i v e s t u d y i s p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e -
l a t e d t o t e n s i o n . T a b l e 8b, which p r e s e n t s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n d i c a t e s , moreover,
t h a t t h e b i g g e s t increment i n t e n s i o n i s encountered as one r i s e s from second l e v e l
s u p e r v i s o r y t o m i d d l e management l e v e l s . N e a r l y a l l t h e top management men i n t h e
sample f a l l I n t o t h e h i g h t e n s i o n group. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
rank and t h e Index o f Role C o n f l i c t , a measure s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t e n s i o n
scores (see Chapter 3 ) , i s n o t a s i m i l a r l y monotonic one. Instead, role c o n f l i c t
i n c r e a s e s as one goes up the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l a d d e r , t e a c h i n g i t s apogee a t m i d d l e
management l e v e l s , and f a l l s a g a i n a t the t o p management l e v e l . (Table 8a)

I n s e r t Table 8 about here

What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h i g h s t a t u s jobs a r e l i k e l y t o account f o r t h e r a n k -

t e n s i o n a s s o c i a t i o n i n Table 8b? Three obvious j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be examined

are those w h i c h a l r e a d y have been observed t o be s t r e s s f u l (Chapters 5 and 6 ) :

importance o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary c o n t a c t s ; importance o f d e p a r t m e n t a l boundary

c o n t a c t s , and i n n o v a t i v e demands. Table 8c i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l t h r e e o f these j o b

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are p a r t i c u l a r l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f j o b s h i g h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

status. The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t a t u s and extra-company c o n t a c t s p a r a l l e l s that

r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r f o r the n a t i o n a l survey sample ( T a b l e 4 ) . These two t a b l e s y i e l d

s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t they employ d i f f e r e n t s t a t u s measures

( o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s v s . o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a n k ) , d i f f e r e n t measures o f the boundary

variable ( frequency
n 1 1
vs. " i m p o r t a n c e " o f boundary c o n t a c t s ) and d i f f e r e n t samples

(a n a t i o n - w i d e sample o f wage and s a l a r y males vs. a r e s t r i c t e d s e l e c t i o n o f r e -

spondents f r o m a h a n d f u l o f companies). The n a t i o n a l survey d i s c o v e r e d no relation

between s t a t u s and the c r o s s i n g o f d e p a r t m e n t a l b o u n d a r i e s ; such a r e l a t i o n was

found i n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , a l t h o u g h i t i s the l e a s t d r a m a t i c o f t h e t h r e e p r e -

sented i n T a b l e 8c.

The n o t i o n s o f s t r e s s f u l boundaries and i n n o v a t i v e pressures e x p l a i n w e l l t h e

a s s o c i a t i o n between r a n k and t e n s i o n ( T a b l e 8 b ) . They do n o t s u f f i c e t o e x p l a i n

 7- 20

Table 7-8

C o r r e l a t e s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n Rank
( I n t e n s i v e Study)

Second L e v e l Middle Top

Foremen Supervisors Management Management

8a. Percentage o f Cases

above Median on Role •
C o n f l i c t Index 18% 60% 90% 54%

8b. Percentage o f Cases

above Median on Tension Index 22% 31% 71% 91%

8c. Percentage o f Cases

above Median on Three Job
Characteristic Indices:

Importance o f Organiza-
t i o n a l Boundary C o n t a c t s 11% 19% 71% 91%

Importance o f Departmental
Boundary C o n t a c t s 22% 38% 47% 64%

I n n o v a t i v e Demands 33% 53% 82%

 7-21
> • • • 1
.

the c u r v i l i n e a r a s s o c i a t i o n between rank and t h e Index o f Role C o n f l i c t . Since t h e y

are n o t t h e group most plagued b y boundary and i n n o v a t i v e demand problems, wfyy should

so many o f t h e m i d d l e management-men (90%) be found t o be under h i g h r o l e c o n f l i c t ?

G u r i n and h i s a s s o c i a t e s e x p l a i n e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s t o

the e x p e r i e n c e o f j o b - r e l a t e d problems i n terms o f t h e g r e a t e r ego-involvement o f

persons i n h i g h e r r a n k i n g o c c u p a t i o n s . T h i s h e i g h t e n e d ego-involvement, a c c o r d i n g

t o G u r i n , " c r e a t e s t h e h i g h a s p i r a t i o n w i t h i n which problems a r e e x p e r i e n c e d . "

i•

From t h e l e a d .suggested by these a u t h o r s , we m i g h t ask whether i t i s t h e h i g h a s p i r a -

t i o n l e v e l o f t h e m i d d l e management men w h i c h makes them t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f t h e

g r e a t e s t p r e s s u r e f r o m t h e i r coworkers. Our d a t a suggest t h a t t h i s i s indeed t h e

case. T a b l e 9a presents, f o r each o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rankiifche percentage .of respondents

I n s e r t Table 9 about h e r e .

w i t h h i g h m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s , a v a r i a b l e coded from second f o c a l i n t e r v i e w . The

c u r v e d e s c r i b e d by t h e percentages i n Table 9a resembles t h e c u r v i l i n e a r a s s o c i a t i o n

between r a n k and sent p r e s s u r e i n Table 8a. From i t s low p o i n t among t h e foremen,

M o b i l i t y A s p i r a t i o n scores r i s e to. t h e i r p i n n a c l e among t h e m i d d l e management men

and then- slump .oiff among t h e " h a v e s " — t h o s e i n t h e h i g h e r management echelon. In

s h o r t , i n d i v i d u a l s .who a r e t h e most a m b i t i o u s encounter t h e g r e a t e s t degree o f r o l e

conflict. 1
•i

The l e a d suggested by G u r i n m i g h t p r o f i t a b l y be c a r r i e d y e t a step f u r t h e r .

, • . : / • • • 1
. • -

When he speaks o f "ego-Involvement," he i s r e f e r r i n g t o t h e i r d i s t i n c t i o n between

"ego" v s . " e x t r i n s i c " job m o t i v a t i o n s . Our i n t e n s i v e study a t t e m p t e d t o d e s c r i b e

each r e s p o n d e n t ' s o r i e n t a t i o n toward h i s j o b I n terms o f a s i x - v a r i a b l e m o t i v a t i o n a l

p r o f i l e w h i c h i n c l u d e d b o t h "ego" and " e x t r i n s i c " m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s : prestige,

a f f i l i a t i o n , e x p e r t i s e , autonomy, power, and s e c u r i t y . These m o t i v a t i o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s

were coded from responses t o q u e s t i o n s a s k i n g what t h e worker looked f o r i n h i s j o b

and what h e c o n s i d e r e d would make a j o b e s p e c i a l l y good o r bad f o r h i m p e r s o n a l l y .

 Table 7-9

M o t i v a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s as a F u n c t i o n o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Rank
( I n t e n s i v e Study)

Second L e v e l Middle Top

Foremen Supervisors Management Management
*"\ ,

9a. P e r c e n t a g e o f Cases
above Median on M o b i l i t y
A s p i r a t i o n s Code 38% 57% 71% 44%

9b. Percentage o f Cases

Coded as S e e k i n g i n
T h e i r Jobs:

Prestige 28% 8% 54% 22%

Affiliation 14% 38% 62% 44%

Expertise 42% 46% 62% 33%

Autonomy 28% 23% 54% 55%

Power 14% 8% 46% 44%

Security 42% 62% 62% 67%

 7-23

The f i r s t f i v e o f these m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s correspond t o the g e n e r a l concept

suggested b y t h e "ego" m o t i v a t i o n n o t i o n , w h i l e s e c u r i t y was regarded as more

"extrinsic."

Table 9b p r e s e n t s the percentage o f respondents a t each o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rank

coded as s e e k i n g each, o f these f i v e v a l u e s i n t h e i r work. The middle-management

people emerge as the h i g h e s t group on t h r e e o f these m o t i v a t i o n a l sources: desire

f o r p r e s t i g e , e x p e r t i s e and a f f i l i a t i o n . Autonomy, power, and s e c u r i t y are as

much sought by upper as by m i d d l e management. That t h e p r e s t i g e - a f f i l i a t i o n -

e x p e r t i s e c l u s t e r should d i f f e r from t h a t o f autonomy-power and s e c u r i t y i s none-

theless suggestive. Prestige, a f f i l i a t i o n , and e x p e r t i s e have i n common dependence

on t h e f a v o r a b l e a p p r a i s a l s o f o t h e r s ; the person m o t i v a t e d by these seeks t o have

o t h e r s r e s p e c t him, l i k e him, ..and admire h i s t e c h n i c a l abilities.

The men i n m i d d l e management thus appear p a r t i c u l a r l y d r i v e n from w i t h i n by

h i g h (and s t i l l u n r e a l i z e d ) m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s , and by a need f o r t h e f a v o r a b l e

evaluations of others. They are a l s o , as we saw e a r l i e r , h i g h e r than any o t h e r

group on t h e Index o f Role C o n f l i c t . How does the i n t e r n a l s t a t e o f t h e m i d d l e

management man a f f e c t o t h e r s about him, and why does i t tend t o evoke p r e s s u r e and
i
i

role conflict? For an answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , we w i l l examine the case o f one

m i d d l e management man who was assigned t h e h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e v a l u e on t h e M o b i l i t y

A s p i r a t i o n s code. T h i s man e p i t o m i z e s elements w h i c h weave through the cases o f

many o f h i s f e l l o w s I n t h e m i d d l e ranks.

M i d d l e Management Man was I n i t i a l l y a t t r a c t e d t o the c o r p o r a t i o n i n which

he now w o r k s because: "A l a r g e company l i k e t h i s i s p r o b a b l y as c l o s e t o U t o p i a

for g e t t i n g ahead on a b i l i t y , y o u know, as you c o u l d approach."

1

" R i g h t now my f u t u r e i s u n l i m i t e d . . . . M y background since I l e f t s c h o o l

has. expanded considerably» • My income'has expanded c o n s i d e r a b l y . . . . 1 m b a s i c a l l y 9

young and new, you know, even i n t h i s c o r p o r a t i o n , , so t h a t I have a wide-open f i e l d .

But a wide-open f i e l d f o r what? What end i s i n s i g h t ?

 7-24

" I d o n ^ t have a long-range g o a l , you know. I'm n o t s a y i n g t h a t i f I g e t i n t o

be i n t h e n e x t l e v e l , I 1 1 be v e r y happy and t h a t ' s , my c a r e e r . I f I were v i c e -
B

p r e s i d e n t i n charge o f t h e company, I ' d be v e r y happy you know. I don't know where

o r what my o b j e c t i v e i s except t o f u l f i l l my p o t e n t i a l . I don t know what t h a t fl

potential i s . "

These q u o t a t i o n s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t o f what was s a i d above about

sources o f j o b m o t i v a t i o n . Being pushed f r o m behind and h a v i n g no s p e c i f i c g o a l ,

one l a c k s a p o i n t o f r e f e r e n c e f o r e v a l u a t i n g ones p r o g r e s s . I n such a case, t h e

r e f l e c t e d appraisals o f others (e.g. ? i n a f f i l i a t i o n , e x p e r t i s e , p r e s t i g e ) become

i n c r e a s i n g l y r e l e v a n t as s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i o n .

M i d d l e Management Man recognizes t h a t h i s s t r u g g l e upward i s a f u n c t i o n o f h i s

own d e s i r e s , r a t h e r t h a n a response t o t h e demands o f o t h e r s :

f,
My w i f e b e l i e v e s t h a t p a r t o f t h e p r o b l e m i s n o t what t h i s company e x p e c t s ,
but, you know, what I e x p e c t . E i t h e r o f m y s e l f o r what I expect o t h e r people expect
of m e . . . r i g h t now I s t i l l p u t i n more.than 40 hours a week...I'm sure i t ' s n o t r e a l l y
r e q u i r e d , h e r e . Most people don't do i t h e r e . So she t h i n k s i t s self-imposed r a t h e r
than company imposed, and t h e r e may be something t o i t . "

" I t h i n k what I do I do because i t I s r e q u i r e d . Maybe t h e o n l y person who

r e q u i r e s i t i s me. That's what she's b a s i c a l l y s a y i n g . Maybe i t ' s a balance o f t h e
two. I know I p u t more t i m e i n here than o t h e r people r e q u i r e o f me o r have ever
asked me f o r . "

H i s b e h a v i o r i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s we1tanschauung:

"If y o u don°t go ahead, you stand s t i l l . You go up, o r you go down."

There i s , t h e n , more t h a n a h i n t o f a m b i t i o n apparent i n t h e words o f M i d d l e

Management Man. But how does h i s a m b i t i o n evoke sent p r e s s u r e from h i s r o l e senders?

A g e n e r a l c o m p l a i n t about t h i s i n d i v i d u a l s d r i v i n g h i m s e l f and o t h e r s i s p r o v i d e d

by one o f them, who, when asked how he would l i k e Middle Management Man t o be

d i f f e r e n t a s a person, replies:

,f
M a i n l y i n h i s e m p l o y e e - r e l a t i o n s . I t h i n k he needs a helluva.. Jx>t. of. change
.there. H e s a damn good gang-boss o u t on t h e l i n e g e t t i n g thIngs.done., butt, h e s
B 0

g o t a h e l l u v a l o t t o l e a r n when i t comes t o p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and 90% o f t h e men

around h e r e say t h e same t h i n g . God! I g e t t i r e d o f h e a r i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t s . I n
p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s he g e t s a z e r o ! T h i s i s bad f o r t h e s e c t i o n because he i r r i t a t e s
e v e r y b o d y - - p e o n l e i n o t h e r ' s e c t i o n s . And s i n c e they can°t g e t a t him, they t a k e i t
out on u s , t h e r e s t o f t h e s e c t i o n . "
 7-25

" T h i s boy needs t o l e a r n t o get a l o n g w i t h people i n s t e a d o f r u n n i n g around,

e x t r a - a g g r e s s i v e , u s i n g people as s t e p p i n g - s t o n e s . And he says he doesn't g i v e a
damn what p e o p l e t h i n k o f him and I t h i n k he s h o u l d care....He's good i n every o t h e r
r e s p e c t - - a damn h a r d business-man BUT he t r e a t s people i n a s e c t i o n l i k e t h e y ' r e on
a gang a t t h e r e f i n e r y where he came f r o m . "

Other m i d d l e management p e o p l e p i c k up s i m i l a r c o m p l a i n t s from t h e i r r o l e senders.

Of one such person, a r o l e sender says:

"At t i m e s I f e e l he i s o v e r - a m b i t i o u s t o t h e p o i n t where he would n o t h e s i t a t e

to h u r t o t h e r s . "

And a n o t h e r o f h i s peers says:

"He s h o u l d n o t be so b r u t a l i n h i s approach i n d e a l i n g w i t h a l l o f us. He can

be t o o t o u g h . I t comes from t h e way he came up. He had t o f i g h t h i s way up...He was
r e a r e d i n a' s e c t i o n of'West V i r g i n i a where t h i n g s were tough...He i s d r i v e n t o h i s
success by h i s w i f e . He has two c h i l d r e n and he wants a l l he. can g e t . I f he and
h i s w i f e w a n t t o accomplish a n y t h i n g they w o n t l e t a n y t h i n g g e t i n t h e i r p a t h . . . I
B

t h i n k he l a c k s a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the younger people i n t h e department, t o t h e k i d s '

f a m i l i e s . He has n o t enough r e g a r d f o r t h e p r i v a t e l i v e s o f t h e p e o p l e under him...
He works h a r d and p l a y s h a r d . There's no h a l f - w a y w i t h him."

0
These m a t e r i a l s suggest t h a t p r e s s u r e s a r e l i k e l y t o be l e v e l e d a g a i n s t M i d d l e

Management Man's a m b i t i o n e s p e c i a l l y as i t a f f e c t s his. i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r . In

this light, h i s own a t t i t u d e s toward I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g . A t one

p o i n t he s a y s :

" I a l w a y s tended t o f e e l t h a t I j u s t wanted t o b e t t e r whatever I was d o i n g . And

wherever I w o u l d see a chance I would t a k e i t . "

T h i s a p p a r e n t l y g u i l t l e s s o p p o r t u n i s m a l s o creeps i n t o h i s answers t o more s p e c i f i c

questions. I n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n what he wants I n a s u p e r i o r , o r why he wanted a

t r a v e l l i n g j o b , n o t e t h a t he asks n o t what he can do f o r o t h e r s b u t what t h e y can do

f o r him:

" I want my s u p e r i o r t o be a sounding board--a guide p o s t . "

" I wanted t o broaden, you know, broaden my whole background, broaden my own
s e l f by t a l k i n g t o these v a r i o u s people i n v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s . . . I d o n t want a
D

t r a v e l l i n g j o b f o r e v e r , b u t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r a g i v e n .period o f t i m e I want a chance

t o g e t t h e p o l i s h t h a t I t h i n k you need."

Other c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t Middle. Management Man are d i r e c t e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c

b e h a v i o r s w h i c h h i s a m b i t i o n engenders. For example, M i d d l e Management Man i s

 7-26

e s p e c i a l l y concerned w i t h g e t t i n g what he r e f e r s t o as " p o l i s h . " When asked what

" p o l i s h " means, he r e p l i e s :

"My b e s t . a n s w e r i s enthusiasm. You know, I f I r e a l l y f i n d a c h a l l e n g e I l i k e ,

I g e t e n t h u s i a s t i c . I mean, I can generate enthusiasm f o r m y s e l f and o t h e r s . T h i s
i s my g r e a t e s t a s s e t , and one o f t h e l i a b i l i t i e s I have f o r b e i n g e n t h u s i a s t i c i s
the p i t f a l l t h a t some people say you a r e impetuous."

And t h i s i s s a i d o f M i d d l e Management Man. A co-worker. says:,

"He should be l e s s i m p u l s i v e . He's a p t t o jump a t a s o l u t i o n w i t h perhaps n o t enough

thought g i v e n t o what may be i n v o l v e d . He s h o u l d r e a l i z e t h a t maybe he has something
to l e a r n .

Another co-worker- says:

" I would l i k e > h i m t o stop, g o i n g o f f h a l f - c o c k e d . He should f i n d o u t more about a

s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e making a d e c i s i o n t o do something about i t . I ' d l i k e him t o r e f e r
problems t o p r o p e r people i n s t e a d o f t r y i n g t o s o l v e them h i m s e l f . I ' d l i k e him t o
stop making p o s i t i v e statements about t h i n g s he knows l i t t l e about. I ' d l i k e him
to stop b e i n g so i m p u l s i v e .

His s u p e r i o r says:

"He s h o u l d approach t h i n g s I n a more seasoned way."

A s u b o r d i n a t e says:

" I t h i n k p e r h a p s he should t h i n k t h i n g s o u t h i m s e l f a l i t t l e more so he w i l l know

what he means when he says i t . "

A n o t h e r s u b o r d i n a t e says:

" I t h i n k he c o u l d slow down j u s t a l i t t l e b i t . I t h i n k he i s i n c l i n e d t o go o f f i n

all directions."

When a s k e d what he would f i n d l e a s t s a t i s f y i n g i n a j o b , t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l

M i d d l e Management Man r e p l i e s :

"Least s a t i s f y i n g ? I would say t h e r o u t i n e . For example, r o u t i n e c o r r e s -

pondence. I mean t h e r e p e t i t i v e correspondence--over and over and o v e r , and they
ask t h e same q u e s t i o n s . "

But he i s p r e s e n t l y " r e d e s i g n i n g " h i s j o b t o e l i m i n a t e t h i s " r o u t i n e . " Why?

" I t h i n k on a c o r p o r a t e b a s i s . I m j u s t f r e e i n g myself f o r more a p p r o p r i a t e

B

areas and t o g e t a b e t t e r r e t u r n on t h e i n v e s t m e n t , you know, from me."

But t h i s e x t e n s i o n o f h i s j o b has i t s p r i c e — w h i c h i s more a p p a r e n t t o those

around him t h a n t o h i m s e l f ; one r o l e sender says o f him:

 7-27

" I t h i n k he could p r o b a b l y devote more t i m e t o t h e work i n our department. I

t h i n k he's g o i n g a f i e l d . Maybe he's c o n c e r n i n g h i m s e l f w i t h t h i n g s o t h e r t h a n what
our group s h o u l d be concerned i n . He's a t t e m p t i n g t o do work which mormally would
f a l l t o t h e e n g i n e e r i n g group t o do. They a r e capable o f h a n d l i n g i t . As a r e s u l t ,
some o f t h e a t t e n t i o n i s n o t b e i n g g i v e n t o h i s own work. Maybe he i s t a k i n g on
more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a n i s r e q u i r e d o r expected o f him.'*

Other c o m p l a i n t s from h i s r o l e senders a r e more s p e c i f i c , c e n t e r i n g around assigned

activities ( t r o u b l e s h o o t i n g , h o l d i n g m e e t i n g s , and the l i k e , ) a t which he spends

l i t t l e time. A r e p e a t e d complaint i s t h a t he f a i l s t o keep h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s s u f f i -

c i e n t l y informed. A c r i s i s o f t h i s l a t t e r i s d e s c r i b e d by a member o f a n o t h e r

section:

" T h i s i n v o l v e s h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h f e l l o w s i n my s e c t i o n . O c c a s i o n a l l y
he c o n s u l t s p e o p l e i n my s e c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g m a t t e r s t h a t a r e n o t our concern. He
took a t r i p once and sent a l o t - o f c a b l e s and l e t t e r s t o me and my s e c t i o n and none
a t a l l t o h i s own p e o p l e , who had t o come t o us t o f i n d o u t what he was d o i n g and
they were v e r y r e s e n t f u l about t h i s . He doesn't communicate w i t h h i s own p e o p l e
when he s h o u l d . "

One'of t h e " b r o a d e n i n g " a c t i v i t i e s M i d d l e Management Man has t a k e n on i s h i s v o l -

u n t a r y j o i n i n g o f a g e n e r a l committee for. c o - o r d i n a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s i n h i s p a r t o f

the company. Of t h i s h i s boss says:

"I'm a f r a i d t h i s Job i s t o o much t o handle a l o n g w i t h h i s own ^ob."

T h i s tendency t o i g n o r e some contemporary aspect o f a j o b i n t h e process o f

c o n c e n t r a t i n g on some o t h e r aspect w h i c h w i l l b e t t e r guarantee advancement i s a

common c o m p l a i n t i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s o f t h e r o l e senders o f t h e a m b i t i o u s p e o p l e .

But t h e tendency t a k e s two s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t . forms. On one hand a r e those people,

l i k e M i d d l e Management Man, who a r e so p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h o r i e n t i n g themselves t o t h e

" b i g p i c t u r e " o f company o p e r a t i o n s t h a t they n e g l e c t t h e more mundane, b u t necessary,

d e t a i l s o f t h e i r contemporary p o s i t i o n s . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e i s a second group

o f c l i m b e r s , whose a s p i r a t i o n s a r e no l e s s b u t whose p e r c e i v e d p a t h t o t h e t o p i s

the v e r y a t t e n t i o n t o p r e s e n t assignments which M i d d l e Management so a s s i d u o u s l y

 7-28

shuns. Role senders say of one such person:

i

" I t h i n k he could be a l i t t l e l e s s c o n s c i e n t i o u s . He takes h i s job just, a l i t t l e

too s e r i o u s l y , i s a s t i c k l e r f o r detail»--whlch sometimes bogs down the o v e r a l l j o b . "

"He shouldn't get so involved i n d e t a i l . I get the Impression he may be an

empire b u i l d e r . " • .

An i n t e n s e o r i e n t a t i o n toward ambition and achievement! t h e r e f o r e , may take

e i t h e r of two opposite forms--taking only the "broad view" v s . being a s t i c k l e r f o r

d e t a i l — b o t h of which may evoke p r e s s u r e from r o l e senders. Both forms appear here

i n exaggerated aspect, more as defenses a g a i n s t anxiety than as r e a l i t y - o r i e n t e d

s t r a t e g i e s f o r advancement. For where I s the r e a l i t y - o r i e n t a t i o n i n s e l f - d e f e a t i n g

behavior which generates e x t e r n a l s t r e s s and i n t e r n a l s t r a i n ? Middle Management Man,

i t should be remembered, was the i n d i v i d u a l who sought " p o l i s h " i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l

r e l a t i o n s so i n t e n s i v e l y and yet i n these same r e l a t i o n s was described by others as

a "gang-boss," Indeed the g o a l - l e s s s t r i v i n g of Middle Management Man suggests t h a t

he i s being d i r v e n by forces which are beyond the scope of the present study to

assess. We can say that he i s ambitious, not why.

Summary^ T h i s chapter has d e a l t with a s s o c i a t i o n s among s e v e r a l s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s

and s e v e r a l measures of job adjustment, based on two very d i f f e r e n t population samples.

: • \ ' . • •

To e x p l a i n the status-adjustment a s s o c i a t i o n s thus obtained, s e v e r a l kinds of i n t e r -

vening sequences have been suggested. A l l t h i s can be reduced, a t some r i s k of

o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , to a few general c o n c l u s i o n s .

Job s t a t u s I s a s s o c i a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h -.

1. the experience of job r e l a t e d t e n s i o n ;

2. i n s t a b i l i t y of f e e l i n g s of o v e r a l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n ;

3: s e l f - r e p o r t 8 of good p h y s i c a l h e a l t h ;

4. r o l e c o n f l i c t ; t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , however, tends to be c u r v i l i n e a r ,

such c o n f l i c t s being most p r e v a l e n t a t middle management l e v e l s .

 7-29

The p r e v a l e n c e of high j o b - r e l a t e d t e n s i o n a t higher s t a t u s l e v e l s I s I n

p a r t e x p l i c a b l e by the f a c t a number of job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shown e a r l i e r to be

s t r e s s f u l a r e most t y p i c a l of h i g h - s t a t u s j o b s . Among these job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

are:

1. business contacts with others o u t s i d e o f ones company;

2. business contacts w i t h others o u t s i d e o f ones < department;

3. demands f o r innovative and c r e a t i v e s o l u t i o n s to non-routine

problems; and

4. supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The h i g h degree of r o l e c o n f l i c t experienced a t middle management l e v e l s seems

not to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to these job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s alone, but to t h e i r I n t e r a c t i o n

with the h i g h l e v e l o f m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s which c h a r a c t e r i s e s middle management

men.
 Chapter 8
i

ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS: SOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES

"Here i t ' s l i k e t h e Gestapo...," says one respondent i n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , as

he gropes f o r a way o f conveying t h e atmosphere o f m u t u a l s u s p i c i o n and a r b i t r a r y r u l e

w h i c h he f e e l s permeates h i s p l a n t . But atmosphere i s an e l u s i v e n o t i o n , and he ends

w i t h a g r i m and hackneyed s i m i l e , d e s c r i b i n g t h e c l i m a t e o f h i s own o r g a n i z a t i o n by

naming a n o t h e r . The c o n c e p t u a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h i s respondent are n o t t o o d i f f e r e n t

f r o m t h o s e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l observers who seek t o d e s c r i b e and even t o measure such

concepts as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l atmosphere and c l i m a t e . And y e t , vague as they a r e , they

command an immediate i n t u i t i v e response. We have l i v e d i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e d

c l i m a t e , even i f we cannot d e f i n e i t t o o u r s a t i s f a c t i o n . Moreover, t h e concept o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e , as i t s a n a l o g i c a l name i m p l i e s , sums up many o f t h e d e t e r -

m i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r what t h i n g s s h a l l grow i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and what t h i n g s be

blighted. The v o c a b u l a r y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e s t h i s t e r m o r i t s

equivalent.

For o u r purposes, two a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e i n v o k e d by our t h e o r e t i c a l

and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l views: t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f c l i m a t e should be w i t h i n t h e frame-

work o f r o l e t h e o r y , and t h e measurement o f c l i m a t e should be c o n s t r u c t e d from i n d i -

vidual behavior, n o t d i v i n e d by any member o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a c t i n g as i n f o r m a n t .

The f i r s t s t e p toward m e e t i n g these r e q u i r e m e n t s was t o d e f i n e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e

i n terms o f norms; norms we had a l r e a d y d e f i n e d elsewhere ( F r e n c h and Kahn, 1962) i n

terms o f r o l e and r e l a t e d concepts. I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e t o t a l meaning o f o r -

g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e can be reduced t o n o r m a t i v e terms, much o f i t , n e v e r t h e l e s s ,

c l e a r l y c o n s i s t s o f those o v e r - a r c h i n g " s h a l t s " and " s h a l t n o t s " w h i c h govern t h e

 8-2

a c t i o n s , i m p l y the s a n c t i o n s , and i n time permeate the s o u l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n members.

When we have s a i d , f o r example, t h a t i n a c e r t a i n company, everyone i s expected t o

be a t h i s desk when the c l o c k s t r i k e s e i g h t , t h a t no one would dream o f t a k i n g more

than 40 m i n u t e s f o r l u n c h , and t h a t t h e l a s t person t o go over the head o f h i s imme-

d i a t e s u p e r i o r was f i r e d w i t h o u t h e a r i n g or a p p e a l , we have done much t o d e s c r i b e the

c l i m a t e o f t h a t company.

The conceptual r e l a t i o n s h i p o f norm t o r o l e begins w i t h the f a c t t h a t t h e y are

d e f i n e d i n the same terms. As w i t h r o l e , the c o n t e n t o f a norm c o n s i s t s o f expecta-

t i o n s ( p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s ) h e l d by c e r t a i n people and a p p l i e d ( s e n t ) t o

c e r t a i n people. A norm becomes more t h a n a p o t e n t i a l i t y o n l y when these expectations

are s e n t , t h a t i s , when pressures are e x e r t e d by c e r t a i n people t o i n f l u e n c e the be-

h a v i o r o f o t h e r s toward c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . All this could

as w e l l be s a i d of a r o l e as a norm. The conceptual d i f f e r e n c e between the two lies

i n t h e r a n g e o f p o s i t i o n s (persons) t o which t h e concept a p p l i e s , and the i m p l i e d

consensus among the senders. An o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm a p p l i e s t o a l l members o f the

o r g a n i z a t i o n ( o r t o some d e f i n a b l e s u b - s e t ) , w h i l e a r o l e a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e occu-

pant of a s p e c i f i c o f f i c e . Moreover, a norm c o n s i s t s of e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d i n common

and u s u a l l y shared by a l l ( o r n e a r l y a l l ) members; the e x p e c t a t i o n s for a role may

be h e l d by o n l y a s i n g l e r o l e - s e n d e r . I n e f f e c t , norm becomes a s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e o r

v a r i a n t o f t h e r o l e concept.

I n t h e f u l l e s t sense an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm i s h e l d by e v e r y member o f t h e o r -

g a n i z a t i o n and a p p l i e s t o every member. For example, a l l members o f a v o l u n t a r y o r -

g a n i z a t i o n may. f e e l t h a t everyone should a t t e n d meetings. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s i s

common ( b e l i e v e d by a l l ) and shared ( s e n t by a l l ) , we say t h a t t h e r e i s an organiza-

t i o n a l norm about b e i n g p u n c t u a l . To the e x t e n t t h a t such common-ness and shared-ness

i s n o t a t t a i n e d , t h e r e i s l e s s normativeness r e g a r d i n g a t t e n d a n c e . At what p o i n t the

word norm s h o u l d no longer be a p p l i e d i s a m a t t e r o f a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n .

 8-3

Our measurement o f n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s d i f f e r s from t h a t o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

i n two r e s p e c t s . F i r s t , much o f the m a t e r i a l on r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s was b u i l t upon

q u e s t i o n s t o r o l e senders d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s o f the f o c a l person's

p o s i t i o n ( e . g . , "Do you want Mr. X t o spend more o r l e s s time on p r e p a r i n g manpower

estimates? ). 1 1
The n o r m a t i v e m a t e r i a l t o f o l l o w d e a l s , on the o t h e r hand, w i t h be-
. *

h a v i o r s a p p l i c a b l e t o persons i n a l l p o s i t i o n s i n our sample; q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g

t o these norms were g e n e r a l , n o t r o l e - s p e c i f i c ( e . g . , "Should Mr. X accept the j u d g -

ments o f h i g h e r - u p s as f i n a l ? " ) . Second, the e x p e c t a t i o n s summarized i n the Role

C o n f l i c t I n d e x were measured i n terms o f the amount o f change away from h i s b e h a v i o r a l

s t a t u s quo w h i c h r o l e senders expected o f the f o c a l person. Measures o f normative

e x p e c t a t i o n s , on the o t h e r hand, were o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o the p r e s e n t be-

h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l person; r o l e senders o n l y i n d i c a t e d whether he s h o u l d or should

n o t do c e r t a i n t h i n g s i r r e s p e c t i v e o f what he was I n f a c t doing. Moreover, t h e

t h i n g s a b o u t w h i c h senders were asked had been chosen f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g e n e r a l i t y ;

they were n o t role-specific.

The raw m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s were the responses

o f r o l e s e n d e r s t o 36 items d e s c r i b i n g , b e h a v i o r s w h i c h c o u l d be engaged i n by any o f

the o c c u p a n t s o f f o c a l r o l e s . S e v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s were employed I n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f

these i t e m s : ( a ) a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o a l l f o c a l p o s i t i o n s ; (b) i n c l u s i o n o f a wide range

of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior; (c) i n c l u s i o n of behaviors s u f f i c i e n t l y controversial that

there might be c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n among r o l e senders as t o what they i d e a l l y ex-

pected. We were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r s h o r t o f unanimous

endorsement o r condemnation. The 36 items s e l e c t e d by these c r i t e r i a are l i s t e d i n

Appendix 8«1.

For e a c h r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n measured i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , two b a s i c questions

are asked: what r o l e senders are most l i k e l y t o h o l d these e x p e c t a t i o n s , and what

^ 1

W h i l e h a l f , o f the n o r m a t i v e q u e s t i o n s d e a l t w i t h e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g s u p e r v i s o r y
b e h a v i o r and are n o t u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e , they
are n o n e t h e l e s s a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l 53 f o c a l persons i n the i n t e n s i v e s t u d y - - a l l o f whom
had'some s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
 8-4

are t h e consequences o f these e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the w o r k - r o l e adjustment o f t h e f o c a l

person? A comparable p a i r o f q u e s t i o n s was asked w i t h r e s p e c t t o each n o r m a t i v e ex-

pectation. But a problem occurs i n the a n a l y s i s o f n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h d i d

not a r i s e i n our e a r l i e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s . I t was p o s s i b l e t o r e g a r d

the sent p r e s s u r e s i n t h e Role C o n f l i c t Index as possessing an i m p o r t a n t commonality

and d i r e c t i o n ; t h e y a l l were p r e s s u r e s away f r o m t h e p r e s e n t b e h a v i o r of the f o c a l

person. F o r t h e 36 n o r m a t i v e items such a p r i o r i commonalities were l a c k i n g . Indeed,

the 36 n o r m a t i v e items were chosen n o t f o r s i m i l a r i t y b u t t o r e p r e s e n t a c o n s i d e r a b l e

range o f n o r m a t i v e i s s u e s . I n view o f t h i s , i t was necessary t o reduce t h i s a r r a y o f

36 i t e m s t o a more manageable number o f homogeneous i t e m c l u s t e r s .

The dimensions o f n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . What are the b a s i c dimensions which

d e f i n e t h e n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f r o l e senders? T h i s q u e s t i o n seems almost c l a s s i -

c a l i n i t s demand f o r a f a c t o r a n a l y t i c answer. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e f o l l o w i n g pages r e -

p o r t t h e r e s u l t s o f a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w h i c h t o o k as i t s raw m a t e r i a l t h e reponses of

the 381 r o l e senders i n d i c a t i n g t h e degree t o w h i c h the advocated compliance or non-

compliance w i t h the b e h a v i o r s d e s c r i b e d by each o f t h e 36 n o r m a t i v e i t e m s .

The i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s among the responses o f r o l e senders t o these i t e m s were

s u b j e c t e d t o a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s by the p r i n c i p a l axes method. Seven f a c t o r s thus ob-

t a i n e d were b l i n d l y r o t a t e d by t h e Varimax method ( K a i s e r , 1958). These seven

orthogonally rotated f a c t o r s accounted f o r 99% o f the common f a c t o r v a r i a n c e s . A

complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f the f a c t o r l o a d i n g s o f a l l 36 items i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e

Appendix.

Subsequent analyses o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms were based on f a c t o r scores r e p r e -

s e n t i n g e a c h r o l e sender's e x p e c t a t i o n s on the s e v e r a l items b e s t r e p r e s e n t i n g each

factor. I n s e l e c t i n g i t e m s t o r e p r e s e n t each f a c t o r , t h e s i x items l o a d i n g h i g h e s t

were c h o s e n , p r o v i d i n g t h e i r f a c t o r l o a d i n g s exceeded .20. Subsequent analyses were

r e s t r i c t e d , however, t o f a c t o r s I-V s i n c e i t was o n l y t o these f i r s t f i v e factors

*The i t e m "Spend most o f h i s t i m e i n s u p e r v i s o r y m a t t e r s " was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e

c o m p u t a t i o n o f f a c t o r scores s i n c e i t seemed t o o c l o s e l y t i e d t o the s p e c i f i c a c t i -
v i t i e s of c e r t a i n focal positions.
 8-5

t h a t m e a n i n g f u l , independent i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c o u l d be assigned. The n e x t few pages

p r o v i d e f o r each o f these f i v e f a c t o r s a s u b s t a n t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the f a c t o r , a

l i s t o f the i t e m s f i n a l l y chosen t o r e p r e s e n t the f a c t o r , and the l o a d i n g o f each o f

these items on the p a r t i c u l a r . f a c t o r .

Factor I--rules orientation. A h i g h score on t h i s f a c t o r i n d i c a t e s t h a t the

r o l e sender i s s t r o n g l y r u l e s o r i e n t e d ; more s p e c i f i c a l l y he h e l d the f o l l o w i n g ex-

p e c t a t i o n s f o r the f o c a l person:

DO s t i c k t o t h e l e t t e r o f company r u l e s . (.70)

DO a c c e p t judgments o f higher-ups as f i n a l . (.42)

DON'T spend t i m e o f f the j o b w i t h o t h e r s who have a much h i g h e r p o s i t i o n

t h a n h i s . (.39)

DON'T by-pass o f f i c i a l channels when he wants something done i n a h u r r y . (.39)

DON'T'take an o c c a s i o n a l day o f f j u s t t o r e l a x . (.37)

DON'T b r e a k company r u l e s when he t h i n k s i t ' s i n the company's best i n t e r e s t . (.34)

The p o s i t i v e end o f t h i s f a c t o r d e s c r i b e s company-oriented e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h r e -

q u i r e f o l l o w i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r u l e - b o o k t o the l e t t e r . These r u l e s - o r i e n t e d ex-

p e c t a t i o n s a r e n o t m e r e l y g e n e r a l , as suggested b y the f i r s t two i t e m s ; they are t o

be a p p l i e d , even when such r u l e s - o r i e n t e d b e h a v i o r m i g h t damage the company i t s e l f .

H i g h - s c o r i n g r o l e senders expect a person t o s t i c k t o the r u l e - b o o k even i f t h i s

b e h a v i o r s l o w s h i s work o r i s c o n t r a r y t o h i s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e company's b e s t i n -

terest.

Loadings o f the t h i r d and. f i f t h items ("should n o t spend time o f f the j o b w i t h

higher-ups" and " s h o u l d n o t t a k e an o c c a s i o n a l day o f f j u s t t o r e l a x " ) , w h i l e t h e y

m i g h t n o t have suggested a Rules O r i e n t a t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by themselves, are n o t

inconsistent with tbis interpretation. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t company r u l e s i m p l y

t h a t people s h o u l d always be on the j o b and n o t be absent f o r " s e l f i s h " purposes

( e . g . , r e l a x a t i o n ) , I t i s reasonable t h a t a b s e n t i n g o n e s e l f f o r purposes o f r e -

l a x a t i o n s h o u l d be p r o s c r i b e d by r u l e s - o r i e n t e d r o l e - s e n d e r s .
 8-6

An i t e m about spending time o f f the j o b w i t h people I n lower p o s i t i o n s loads

on t h i s f a c t o r i n the same d i r e c t i o n as does the i t e m about spending time w i t h those

i n higher p o s i t i o n s . T h i s s i m i l a r i t y i n l o a d i n g suggests t h a t t h e p r o s c r i p t i o n

a g a i n s t " s p e n d i n g time w i t h h i g h e r - u p s " does n o t here r e f l e c t a d i s l i k e f o r a p p l e -

i

p o l i s h i n g i ( a s i t does i n F a c t o r V ) . R a t h e r , i t r e p r e s e n t s a tendency t o p r o s c r i b e

i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t s w i t h a l l persons t o whom one stands i n a r e l a t i o n o f s u p e r o r d i n a t i o n

or subordination. Such c o n t a c t s m i g h t t e n d t o weaken the i m p e r s o n a l i t y r e q u i r e d f o r

a truly rules-oriented administration.

Factor II--tluturance o f subordinates. The r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s

f a c t o r are:

T r a i n men under him f o r b e t t e r j o b s . (.61)

Take a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n h i s men. (.58)

Be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r keeping up the morale o f those under him. (.58)

Keep men i n f o r m e d on what i s happening i n the company. (.44)

Accept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d e c i s i o n s o f those under him. (.42)

C o n s u l t w i t h h i s men i n making any d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t them. (.37)

Factor III--closeness of supervision. Role senders s c o r i n g h i g h on t h i s factor

endorse t h e f o l l o w i n g statements f o r the f o c a l person:

DON'T l e t those he s u p e r v i s e s s e t t h e i r own work pace. (.68)

DON'T a l l o w h i s men a g r e a t d e a l t o say about t h e way t h e y do t h e i r work. (.60)

DON'T leave the men he s u p e r v i s e s alone unless they want h e l p . (.50)

DO r e p o r t o t h e r s who break company r u l e s . (.42)

DON'T t a k e s i d e s w i t h h i s men i n any d i s p u t e w i t h t h e company. (.39)

DO c h e c k f r e q u e n t l y on the work o f h i s men, (.38)

The i t e m s on F a c t o r s I I and I I I are p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h a t t h e y do

n o t r e p r e s e n t the s i n g l e dimension of. s u p e r v i s o r y s u p p o r t i v e n e s s w h i c h has been

so o f t e n assumed i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f human r e l a t i o n s . They a r r a y themselves i n -

s t e a d on t w o o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s . F a c t o r I I concerns i t s e l f w i t h demands t h a t a
 8-7

s u p e r v i s o r have a t h e a r t t h e best i n t e r e s t s o f those w o r k i n g f o r him and t h a t he

be s o l i c i t o u s i n h i s d e a l i n g w i t h these s u b o r d i n a t e s . The items subsumed under

Factor I I I , a l s o r e l e v a n t t o s u p e r v i s o r y b e h a v i o r , are more d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h

the a c t u a l performance of s u b o r d i n a t e s as e n t e r e d i n t o by the s u p e r v i s o r . Most o f

the i t e m s i n F a c t o r I I I p r e s c r i b e what would o r d i n a r i l y be d e s i g n a t e d as c l o s e or

s t r i c t supervision.

The emergence o f two such independent f a c t o r s as these s u p p o r t s the view that

s u p e r v i s o r y b e h a v i o r cannot be d e s c r i b e d on a s i n g l e continuum r a n g i n g from employee-

centered t o job-centered s t y l e s . Factors I I and I I I are more compatible w i t h the

two-dimensional d e s c r i p t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p i n terms o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n and initiating

structure. ( H e m p h i l l and Westie, 1950; S t o g d i l l , e t a l , 1955.)

The p l a u s i b i l i t y o f n u r t u r a n c e and closeness as independent aspects o f s u p e r v i s i o n

i s enhanced when we c o n s i d e r them i n c o m b i n a t i o n . Such a c o m b i n a t i o n , i n i t s s i m p l e s t

form i s p r e s e n t e d i n Table 1. I n t u i t i v e r e c o g n i t i o n o f the types i m p l i e d by t h e f o u r

c e l l s o f t h a t t a b l e comes q u i c k l y , and the d e s i g n a t i o n s w h i c h we have e n t e r e d seem

n a t u r a l and o b v i o u s . The p a t t e r n o f p r o t e c t i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e ( c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n - h i g h

n u r t u r a n c e ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e essence o f p a t e r n a l i s m , as t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of freedom w i t h -

out n u r t u r a n c e represents the uncaring p o l i c y which i s l i t e r a l l y l a i s s e z - f a i r e . The

merger o f c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n w i t h low. n u r t u r a n c e t y p i f i e s t h e " p r o d u c t i o n hound"

s u p e r v i s o r d e s c r i b e d by many a d i s g r u n t l e d employee, w h i l e t h e g e n e r a l l y - s u p e r v i s i n g ,

h i g h l y - n u r t u r a n t s t y l e comes c l o s e s t t o t h e p a t t e r n o f s u p e r v i s o r y success as r e p o r t e d

i n the l i t e r a t u r e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior.

I n s e r t Table 1 about here

Factor IV—Unlversalism

F a c t o r I V i s named a f t e r the dimension o f u n i v e r s a l i s m - p a r t i c u l a r i s m , which

p l a y s so p r o m i n e n t a p a r t i n Parsons 1
t r e a t m e n t o f s o c i a l systems and social values.

I t s component items a r e as follows:

 8-8

Table 8-1

F o u r S u p e r v i s o r y S t y l e s D e f i n e d by t h e C o n j u n c t i o n o f N u r t u r a n c e
o f Subordinates and Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n F a c t o r s

Nurturance of Subordinates

High Low
Closeness o f
Supervision Close Paternalism Job-centered
Supervision

General Employee-centered I n d i f f e r e n t , impersonal

Supervision Laissez-faire
 8-9

DON'T w i t h o l d i n f o r m a t i o n from h i g h e r - u p s which p u t s a co-worker i n a b a d l i g h t . (.62)

DON'T t r y t o cover up e r r o r s made by those under him. (.53)

DON'T d o f a v o r s f o r f r i e n d s c o n t r a r y t o company r u l e s . (.43)

DO r e p o r t o t h e r s who break company r u l e s . ' (.30)

DON'T g i v e s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o f r i e n d s i n making recommendations f o r p r o m o t i o n . (.27)

DON'T d e f e n d h i s co-workers from c r i t i c i s m by t h e I t s u p e r i o r s . (.25)

Parsons and S h i l s d e s c r i b e t h e i r u n i v e r s a l i s t i c - p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c d i m e n s i o n as

follows: "(1) Universalism: the role-expectation t h a t , i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r

memberships and d e c i s i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t , p r i o r i t y w i l l be g i v e n t o s t a n d -

a r d s d e f i n e d i n c o m p l e t e l y g e n e r a l i z e d terms, independent o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r relation-

s h i p o f t h e a c t o r ' s own s t a t u s e s t o those o f t h e o b j e c t . . ( 2 ) Particularism: the

r o l e - e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t , i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r membership and d e c i s i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l

t r e a t m e n t , p r i o r i t y w i l l be g i v e n t o standards' which a s s e r t t h e primacy o f t h e v a l u e s

a t t a c h e d t o o b j e c t s by t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s t o t h e a c t o r ' s p r o p e r t i e s a s over

against t h e i r general u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e class p r o p e r t i e s . " (1954, p . ' 8 2 ) .

The t w o extremes o f F a c t o r IV appear t o r e p r e s e n t i n c o n c r e t e terms, t h e

u n i v e r s a l l s t i c v s . p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c dichotomy thus d e s c r i b e d by Parsons and S h i l s .

T h i s f a c t o r embodies a demand t h a t t h e f o c a l person d i s r e g a r d h i s p r i m a r y relation-

s h i p s w i t h h i s work a s s o c i a t e s , such as f r i e n d s h i p o r membership i n t h e same sub-

g r o u p , i n f a v o r o f l o y a l t y t o t h e s o c i a l ' system as a whole, embodied here by " t h e

company." Each person i s t o be guided i n h i s d e a l i n g s w i t h o t h e r s o n l y by those

u n v i e r s a l i s t i c v a l u e s which p e t t a i n t o t h e "company good," r e l i n q u i s h i n g any

acknowledgement o f a f f e c t i v e bonds and p e r s o n a l needs, and a v o i d i n g any o t h e r d i s -

p l a y s o f p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c f a v o r i t i s m toward co-workers.

F a c t o r V--Promotion-achievement O r i e n t a t i o n

DO t a k e advantage o f every o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion. (.61)

DO t r y t o make h i m s e l f l o o k good i n t h e eyes o f h i g h e r - u p s when ever p o s s i b l e .

(.44)
 8-10

DO spend t i m e o f f t h e j o b w i t h o t h e r s who have a much h i g h e r p o s i t i o n t h a n

h i s . (.28)

DO t r a i n men under him f o r b e t t e r j o b s . (.26)

DO come up w i t h new, o r i g i n a l ideas f o r h a n d l i n g work. (.22)

F a c t o r V c l e a r l y concerns a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r s r e l e v a n t t o t h e f o c a l

person's p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r p r o m o t i o n . I t s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e f o c a l person should

accept p r o m o t i o n s when o f f e r e d , should p r e s e n t a f a v o r a b l e p u b l i c image t o h i s

s u p e r i o r s a n d should c u l t i v a t e i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h these s u p e r i o r s . Not o n l y i s

he expected t o be p r o m o t i o n - o r i e n t e d h i m s e l f ; he i s a l s o expected t o a c t i n such a

way as t o i n c r e a s e t h e p r o m o t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .

From t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h i s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , each respondent was

assigned a score i n d i c a t i n g h i s p o s i t i o n on t h e s e v e r a l items used t o i d e n t i f y

each f a c t o r . I n o b t a i n i n g these f a c t o r s c o r e s , raw i t e m scores were f i r s t standard-

i z e d , g i v i n g a l l items equal means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , and each o f these

s t a n d a r d i z e d scores was t h e n w e i g h t e d by i t s squared factor loading. The score o f

each r e s p o n d e n t on a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r c o n s i s t s o f h i s w e i g h t e d , s t a n d a r d i z e d i t e m

scores, summed over t h e s e v e r a l items c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f a c t o r .

A t t r i b u t e s and Normative Expectations

The n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f one person f o r another o r i g i n a t e w i t h t h e f a c t o f

t h e i r common o r g a n i z a t i o n a l membership, b u t c a n be thought o f as m o d i f i e d by v a r i o u s

additional factors. One o f these a d d i t i o n s i s t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c s t a t e o f t h e

person ( n o r m - s e n d e r ) ; he i s a p a r t i c u l a r I n d i v i d u a l who o c c u p i e s a.particular

p o s i t i o n i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Another m o d i f i e r o f normative e x p e c t a t i o n s i s t h e

r o l e - r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e person (norm-sender) and t h e i n d i v i d u a l f o r whom he

holds these normative e x p e c t a t i o n s (norm-receiver o r f o c a l person).

For example, c o n s i d e r an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e norm r e q u i r e s r a t h e r strict

adherence t o r u l e s ; t h a t i s , most people i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t h i n k i t i m p o r t a n t

t h a t members should f o l l o w t h e r u l e s , and these e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e communicated

 8-11

widely. N e v e r t h e l e s s , . we m i g h t s e l e c t two members o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a t random

and f i n d one much more r u l e s - o r i e n t e d t h a n t h e o t h e r , a c o n t r a s t reflecting

d i f f e r e n c e s ~in p e r s o n a l i t y , p o s i t i o n , o r b o t h . We m i g h t f i n d a l s o t h a t these

people d i d n o t a p p l y t h e i r n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s i n an u n v a r y i n g f a s h i o n t o a l l
i

members o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . They m i g h t f e e l (as ,many members do) t h a t i t i s

important f o r t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s t o be s t r i c t l y r u l e s - o r i e n t e d b u t t h a t i t i s

d e s i r a b l e f o r t h e i r s u p e r i o r s t o be l e s s so.

I n C h a p t e r 9 we w i l l examine i n d e t a i l some o f t h e r o l e r e l a t i o n s which lead

people t o m o d i f y t h e i r n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r c e r t a i n f o c a l persons. In this

c h a p t e r we a r e concerned w i t h f a c t o r s w h i c h account f o r p e r s i s t e n t d e v i a t i o n s i n t h e

normative expectations o f an i n d i v i d u a l from t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l mean^-enduring

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e person h i m s e l f o r o f h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n .

Four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f members a r e u t i l i z e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s :

. !• T e n u r e — t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e person has been a member o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

2. Rank--the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n i n t h e company h i e r a r c h y . The
p r o c e d u r e f o r a s s i g n i n g a rank code t o each p o s i t i o n was s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d
f o r f o c a l persons b u t r a t h e r i n v o l v e d f o r o t h e r s . Each f o c a l person was
a s s i g n e d a rank code based on t h e number o f echelons between h i s own
p o s i t i o n and t h a t o f n o n s u p e r v i s o r y ( h o u r l y r a t e d ) workers.' The r e s u l t i n g
code was a d j u s t e d t o take account o f d i f f e r e n c e s between companies i n t h e
t o t a l number o f e c h e l o n s . For p o s i t i o n s o t h e r t h a n those o f f o c a l persons,
r a n k was estimated, on t h e b a s i s o f s a l a r y comparisons w i t h f o c a l persons
i n t h e same company.

3. S u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y — a dichotomous d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether o r n o t
each p o s i t i o n involves supervisory a c t i v i t i e s .

4. Blue-collar or white-collar position.

The associations between these f o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f members and t h e i r

s c o r e s on t h e f i v e n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n f a c t o r s a r e summarized i n Table 2. Each

e n t r y i n t h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .05 l e v e l o r beyond.* The c a p t i o n

i n each c e l l i n d i c a t e s t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r o l e - s e n d e r

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and n o r m a t i v e f a c t o r , i . e . , w h i c h l e v e l o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c under

consideration implies the higher score on t h e p a r t i c u l a r n o r m a t i v e f a c t o r .

Based on t h e o v e r a l l F t e s t o f mean e x p e c t a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ,
 8-12

Occupying a p o s i t i o n w i t h s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Table 2, l i n e 4)

d i s p o s e s a p e r s o n t o take an extreme p o s i t i o n on a l l f i v e normative factors.

Compared t o people who are n o t s u p e r v i s o r s , those who hold supervisory jobs expect

f o c a l p e r s o n s t o be u n i v e r s a l i s t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d ( F a c t o r V) and o r i e n t e d toward

company r u l e s ( F a c t o r I ) . They expect a f o c a l person t o e x e r c i s e c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n

(Factor I I I ) and a t the same time t o take a c l o s e p e r s o n a l interest i n his men

(Factor I I ) , a composite p a t t e r n i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r as " p a t e r n a l i s t i c . 1 1

The

personal i n t e r e s t w h i c h f o c a l persons are expected t o t a k e has i t s l i m i t s , however.

Where r u l e s o r i e n t e d and personal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are i n c o n f l i c t , as. they are i n

the h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s on w h i c h F a c t o r IV ( U n i v e r s a l i s m vs. P a r t i c u l a r i s m ) i s

based, p e o p l e w i t h s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y demand more than o t h e r s t h a t such

c o n f l i c t s be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f adherence t o impersonal rules.

W i t h i n our sample o f s u p e r v i s o r y people, we can d i s t i n g u i s h two sub-groups

who h o l d somewhat c o n t r a s t i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s i n what they f e e l i s a p p r o p r i a t e

superivsory behavior. On one hand i s the s u p e r i v s o r i n a low s t a t u s b l u e - c o l l a r j o b

who has been w i t h h i s p r e s e n t company f o r a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e . He i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d

by h i g h s c o r e s on b o t h Rules O r i e n t a t i o n and Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n f a c t o r s . As

a norm-sender, t h i s l o w - s t a t u s , l o n g - t e n u r e , b l u e - c o l l a r s u p e r v i s o r b e l i e v e s t h a t a

good o r g a n i z a t i o n a l man does not d e v i a t e from the r u l e s o r from the demands o f h i s

s u p e r i o r s , even when he f e e l s t h a t b r e a k i n g r u l e s o r b y p a s s i n g o f f i c i a l c h a n n e l s i s

I n the company's b e s t i n t e r e s t s . T h i s norm-sender a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t a s u p e r v i s o r

should g r a n t a minimum o f freedom t o h i s men w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e manner o r pace a t

which they work. He should p u t the i n t e r e s t s o f the company above those o f h i s

men a t a l l t i m e s , r e p o r t i n g those who break company r u l e s and n o t t a k i n g s i d e s w i t h

h i s men i n d i s p u t e s w i t h the company.

A c o n t r a s t i n g o r i e n t a t i o n i s h e l d by a second group o f s u p e r v i s o r s whose own

s i t u a t i o n i n the company i s v e r y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t j u s t d e s c r i b e d . T h i s second

 8-13

group c o n s i s t s o f s u p e r v i s o r s who have o n l y moderate company tenure and h o l d h i g h -

s t a t u s w h i t e - c o l l a r j o b s . They t h i n k a . s u p e r v i s o r should be n u r t u r a n t toward h i s
s u b o r d i n a t e s ; l i k e o t h e r h i g h - s t a t u s w h i t e - c o l l a r people, t h e y are low. on b o t h Rules
O r i e n t a t i o n and Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n demands. They b e l i e v e a s u p e r v i s o r ought
t o take a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n h i s men, and ought t o groom them f o r b e t t e r j o b s .
He a l s o s h o u l d p r o v i d e h i s men w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n as t o what i s happening elsewhere
i n the company, and should i n c o r p o r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s
i n t o h i s own d e c i s i o n making.

I n s e r t t a b l e 2 about here

As we have seen, Table 2 can be used i n a number o f ways. One may choose a

p a r t i c u l a r normative e x p e c t a t i o n , and ask whether t h e r e are c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

w h i c h d i s p o s e members o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o p o s i t i o n s o f extreme endorsement or

rejection of i t . T h i s approach emphasizes, f o r example, the f a c t t h a t agreement w i t h

r e s p e c t t o U n i v e r s a l i s m ( w i t h o n l y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

making f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n n o r m a t i v e views) i s c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than agreement

about the norms o f Rules O r i e n t a t i o n , Nurturance o f Subordinates, and Closeness o f

S u p e r v i s i o n , s i n c e v i e w s r e g a r d i n g these norms are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t among

people o f d i f f e r i n g rank, t e n u r e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and j o b c o n t e n t , v

Read a c r o s s r a t h e r than down, the t a b l e answers such q u e s t i o n s as w h i c h

normative e x p e c t a t i o n s are most t y p i c a l o f b l u e - c o l l a r w o r k e r s ( i . e . , h i g h Rules

O r i e n t a t i o n , low Nurturance o f Subordinates, h i g h Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n ) or

what n o r m a t i v e v i e w s are e s p e c i a l l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f people w i t h l o n g t e n u r e i n the

company ( i . e . , h i g h Rules O r i e n t a t i o n , h i g h Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n , h i g h

Promotion-Achievement O r i e n t a t i o n ) . However one chooses t o l o o k a t and. i n t e r p r e t

T a b l e 2, t h e mere f a c t o f e n t r i e s i n the c e l l s makes a p o i n t w o r t h reiterating:

the n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h a person h o l d s f o r o t h e r s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e

 8-14

Table 8-2

Summary Table o f A s s o c i a t i o n s between C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Role

Senders and the Normative E x p e c t a t i o n s o f these Senders

Normative F a c t o r

I .11 III IV V ^
Rules Nurturance Closeness o f Universalism Promotion-
Orientation of Supervision Achievement
Subordinates Orientation

High Moderate High High

Tenure Tenure Tenure Tenure
Charac-

teristics Low High Low

Rank Rank Rank
of

B l u e - ~.y:.- h White-
,
Role Blue-
Collar /' Collar Collar -
Senders

Supervisory Supervisory Supervisory Supervisory Supervisory

'' R e s p o n s i - Responsi- Responsi- Responsi- Responsi-
bility, bility bility bility bility
 8-15

p a r t l y e x p l i c a b l e i n terms o f c e r t a i n f i x e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e person's own

organizational position. There i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , c o n s i d e r a b l e u n i f o r m i t y o f

normative e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , b u t t h e d e v i a t i o n s from t h a t agreement

are s i g n i f i c a n t and s y s t e m a t i c . A subsequent c h a p t e r w i l l i n d i c a t e how these same

n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n s between norm-senders

and the t a r g e t s o f t h e i r expectations.

Role S t r e s s and t h e Normative M i l i e u

T h i s c h a p t e r began w i t h an a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e i n commensurate terms t h r e e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l concepts: c l i m a t e , norm, and r o l e . We found t h e i r commonality i n

the concept o f e x p e c t a t i o n s and t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f e x p e c t a t i o n s . Thus, a norm

c o n s i s t s i d e a l l y o f e x p e c t a t i o n s which a r e system-wide and a p p l y t o a l l persons; a ro

c o n s i s t s o f e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h a p p l y o n l y t o a c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n ( o r homogeneous

class of p o s i t i o n s ) . A complementary d i s t i n c t i o n between norm and r o l e i n v o l v e s

I

the sender s r a t h e r t h a n t h e r e c e i v e r s o f e x p e c t a t i o n s . We t h i n k o f normative

e x p e c t a t i o n s as h e l d i d e a l l y by all.members o f a g i v e n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l system, i n

c o n t r a s t t o r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , which a r e h e l d by some. subset o f people d e f i n e d as

r o l e s e n d e r s p r i m a r i l y by t h e s t r u c t u r e s o f w o r k f l o w and f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y . The

system-permeating e x p e c t a t i o n s o f norms we t h i n k o f as c o n s t i t u t i n g , i n c o m b i n a t i o n ,

the c l i m a t e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . As we have seen, however, t h e consensus o f

members w i t h r e s p e c t t o norms' i s l e s s t h a n complete, and i s m e d i a t e d by t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e norm-senders themselves.

The d e f i n i t i o n o f norms i n systemic terms r e q u i r e s t h a t we encounter normative

d i f f e r e n c e s as we c r o s s system b o u n d a r i e s , and l e a d s us t o suspect t h a t we m i g h t

a l s o d i s c o v e r normative d i f f e r e n c e s as we c r o s s t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f sub-systems. The

n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e can even be reduced t o m i c r o -

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l terms, and l e a d us t o e x p l o r e t h e frequency o f normative d i f f e r e n c e s

among r o l e sets., To t h e e x t e n t t h a t such d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t , they suggest t h a t

 8-16

each r o l e s e t ( f o c a l person and r o l e senders) produces i t s own l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s o n

the g e n e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate. Normative a n a l y s i s a t t h e l e v e l o f r o l e sets

a l s o p e r m i t s us t o examine t h e e f f e c t s o f l o c a l c l i m a t i c v a r i a t i o n s on f o c a l persons.

For t h i s analysis, a score was a s s i g n e d t o each r o l e s e t on each o f t h e f i v e

normative f a c t o r s (Rules O r i e n t a t i o n , N u r t u r a n c e , Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n ,

U n i v e r s a l i s m - p a r t i c u l a r i s m , and Achievement O r i e n t a t i o n ) . These scores were

based d i r e c t l y on t h e mean f o r a l l r o l e senders i n a g i v e n s e t . We c o u l d t h e n

c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s e t s , t h e amount

of objective r o l e c o n f l i c t i n t h e s e t , and t h e apparent e f f e c t s on t h e f o c a l person.

I n s e r t Table 3 about here

Table 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t i s g r e a t e s t where t h e p r e v a i l i n g e x p e c t a -

t i o n s i n a r o l e s e t emphasize l o w Rules O r i e n t a t i o n , l o w Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n ,

and l o w U n i v e r s a l i s m — t h a t i s , i n groups w h i c h d e v i a t e from t h e g e n e r a l organi-

z a t i o n a l norms i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p e r m i s s i v e n e s s , autonomy, and a willingness

t o d e a l w i t h people i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , p e r s o n a l terms. Moreover, t h e t e n s i o n scores

o f f o c a l p e r s o n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n r o l e s e t s w h i c h deprecate o r i e n t a t i o n

t o r u l e s and c l o s e n e s s o f s u p e r v i s i o n , r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r r o l e sets (p^.10 and

p^.001 respectively).

These f i n d i n g s admit o f s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . They c o u l d be t a k e n as an

argument i n f a v o r o f s t r i c t b u r e a u c r a t i c s t y l e , as l e s s c o n f l i c t f u l and u l t i m a t e l y

more t e n s i o n free;, t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t to reconcile w i t h the bulk o f

social psychological studies o f organization, however. I t i s possible also t o

interpret the relationships p r i m a r i l y i n terms or* c o n s i s t e n c y o f e x p r e s s i o n by members of

each r o l e s e t . People who b e l i e v e s t r o n g l y i n adhering t o organizational r u l e s do

not b e l i e v e i n c r e a t i n g c o n f l i c t f o r t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s , f o r example.

There i s , however, a t h i r d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h deserves c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t

a s s e r t s s i m p l y t h a t a person i s s u b j e c t e d t o g r e a t e r r o l e c o n f l i c t and e x p e r i e n c e s
 Table 8-3

Percentage o f C l u s t e r s C h a r a c t e r i z e d by High Role C o n f l i c t as a

F u n c t i o n o f P r e v a i l i n g E x p e c t a t i o n s on Three Normative F a c t o r s

C l u s t e r s C h a r a c t e r i z e d by: % o f Cases Under

H i g h Role C o n f l i c t p

H i g h Rules Orientation 357.

Low Rules Orientation

63% <\05

H i g h Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n
30%
Low Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n

67% </.01
High U n i v e r s a l i s m

Low U n i v e r s a l i s m
37%
65% . 05
 8-18

g r e a t e r t e n s i o n when the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f h i s r o l e senders a r e b a s i c a l l y a n t i -

organizational. For example, h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s t h i n k he should not accept o r g a n i -

z a t i o n a l r u l e s o r o r d e r s from above as a b s o l u t e s , b u t should b r e a k r u l e s and bypass

o f f i c i a l c h a n n e l s when he deems i t j u s t o r necessary. H i s c l o s e s t co-workers h o l d

normative e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r him which d e v i a t e from the b u r e a u c r a t i c p r i n c i p l e s

w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e the backbone o f most i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The f o c a l person

must' e i t h e r r e a s s e r t the more b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms and repudiate

h i s a l r e a d y mutinous crew, o r " j o i n them i n n a v i g a t i n g an a l i e n b u r e a u c r a t i c

sea.

Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t would not be s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t f o c a l persons

i n such r o l e s e t s are o f t e n i n d i f f i c u l t y w i t h people o u t s i d e the s e t . The

c o n f l i c t o f o l d guard v s . new (Chapter 6) t y p i f i e s such a s i t u a t i o n . Persons i n

i n n o v a t i v e r o l e s were e a r l i e r shown t o have r o l e senders who demanded a degree o f

c r e a t i v e and i n n o v a t i v e b e h a v i o r which was i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h more g e n e r a l organi-

z a t i o n a l r u l e s , and was f r e q u e n t l y opposed by people i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l groups l e s s

concerned w i t h i n n o v a t i o n t h a n w i t h maintenance o f the s t a t u s quo. But the p r e s s u r e s

placed on f o c a l persons i n n o r m a t i v e l y p e r m i s s i v e c l u s t e r s are n o t w h o l l y from role

senders o u t s i d e h i s c l u s t e r . The p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between p e r m i s s i v e norms and

the Role C o n f l i c t Index I n d i c a t e s t h a t the people who b e l i e v e i n permissive anti-

b u r e a u c r a t i c behavior are senders o f h i g h p r e s s u r e t o . t h e f o c a l person.

The e x p e c t a t i o n a l m i l i e u w h i c h i n a sense g r a n t s t o a f o c a l .person the g r e a t e s t

freedom a l s o c r e a t e s f o r him the g r e a t e s t s t r e s s . Two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s

freedom m i g h t serve t o make t h i s s i t u a t i o n a s t r e s s f u l one. First, with increased

freedom comes g r e a t e r personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r ones d e c i s i o n s . Second,

freedom o f c h o i c e means t h e freedom t o make wrong d e c i s i o n s as w e l l as c r e a t i v e l y

r i g h t ones. Aberrations from p r e s c r i b e d performance may be l e s s t o l e r a t e d i n a

restrictive o r g a n i z a t i o n a l environment than i n a permissive one; i n the more

restrictive environment a person must s t e p back i n t o l i n e o r be fired. Where

 8-19

the c l u s t e r norms are those o f l e n i e n c y , t o l e r a n c e , and n u r t u r a n c e , the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

d e v i c e s w h i c h b r i n g t h e d e v i a n t back i n t o l i n e a r e more remote and slower t o
o p e r a t e , t h o u g h perhaps no l e s s sure. I n s h o r t , w h i l e a p e r m i s s i v e c l u s t e r m i l i e u
i n a l e s s p e r m i s s i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n p e r m i t s t h e f o c a l person t o r e l i s h t h e f r u i t s o f
b e h a v i o r a l and d e c i s i o n a l freedom, i t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y burdens him w i t h g r e a t e r
p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s decisions, exposes him t o c o r r e c t i o n from o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
sources o u t s i d e the c l u s t e r , and p r e s e n t s him w i t h the problem o f t r y i n g t o l i v e
s u c c e s s f u l l y i n two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l w o r l d s . The p e r m i s s i v e c l u s t e r s e t s f o r the
f o c a l person a tender t r a p .
 Chapter 9

FORMAL ROLE RELATIONS AND ROLE STRESS

A d i s t i n c t i o n i s made on t h e o p e r a t i c s t a g e between a chorus and an ensemble.

Members o f a chorus a r e u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ; t h e y see the c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r w i t h a s i n g l e

p a i r o f eyes and p r a i s e o r denounce him w i t h a s i n g l e v o i c e . The c h a r a c t e r s i n an

ensemble, a l t h o u g h o f t e n as numerous as those i n a chorus, c o n s t i t u t e a more d i f f e r e n -

t i a t e d g r o u p , each w i t h h i s p a r t i c u l a r r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e c e n t r a l character.

The demands made by each on t h e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r are p e c u l i a r l y c o l o r e d by t h e I n t e r -

p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y o f the pair.

Of t h e s e two models, t h e chorus i s more c o n v e n i e n t b u t ensemble more a p p r o p r i a t e

to the study o f r o l e c o n f l i c t i n formal organizations. Only when a person f l a g r a n t l y

v i o l a t e s an i m p o r t a n t and g e n e r a l l y held organizational norm does t h e c h o r a l model

obtain i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; o n l y then do a l l r o l e senders speak i n a s i n g l e voice

against t h e v i o l a t o r ' s behavior. More commonly, a person's r o l e s e n d e r s — e a c h a l s o

an occupant o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e , each s u b j e c t e d t o a unique s e t o f r o l e expecta-

t i o n s , and each b e a r i n g a unique r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e f o c a l p e r s o n — d i f f e r among them-

s e l v e s as t o what they expect o f the. f o c a l p e r s o n .

As a r e s u l t , a f o c a l person i s n o t bombarded w i t h r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e same

c o n t e n t and i n t h e same way from a l l p o t e n t i a l sources i n h i s r o l e s e t . A f u l l under-

s t a n d i n g o f t h e r o l e s e n d i n g process cannot be o b t a i n e d m e r e l y from t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e

r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , n o r even f r o m t h e s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r o l e

senders and f o c a l persons. One must c o n s i d e r a l s o t h e unique r e l a t i o n s h i p o f each

r o l e sender t o t h e f o c a l person. T h i s we w i l l a t t e m p t t o do i n the p r e s e n t c h a p t e r ,

c o n c e n t r a t i n g on c e r t a i n f o r m a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s e dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( r o l e sender
 9-2

and f o c a l person). Viewed i n t h i s way,, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w h i l e i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t h e

b r o a d sense o f t h e t e r m , a r e l a r g e l y d e p e r s o n a l i z e d ; o u r emphasis here i s on those

a s p e c t s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s between people w h i c h a r e shaped p r i m a r i l y by t h e f o r m a l s t r u c -

tures o f organization. P o s i t i o n a l , r a t h e r t h a n p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s become t h e p r i n c i p a l

units of analysis.

Four R o l e R e l a t i o n s — C o n c e p t i o n and Measurement. Every o r g a n i z a t i o n is.faced

w i t h two b a s i c problems. The f i r s t problem i s t h a t o f t h e d i v i s i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

a c t i v i t i e s i n t o s u b s e t s , each subset b e i n g o f such a s i z e and n a t u r e t h a t i t can be

p e r f o r m e d b y a s i n g l e person. But t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r c r e a t e s a

second p r o b l e m , t h a t o f c o - o r d i n a t i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g these a c t i v i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t to

the organization's goals. Out o f t h e attempt t o s o l v e such problems o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

and i n t e g r a t i o n develop t h e s u b s t r u c t u r e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s

among r o l e s . The p r e s e n t chapter w i l l i s o l a t e f o r a n a l y s i s f o u r such r o l e r e l a t i o n s - -

basic t o organizations i n t h a t they a r i s e d i r e c t l y from t h e processes o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

and control. The f i r s t , f u n c t i o n a l dependence, r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h a t w h i l e different

a c t i v i t i e s may be a l l o t t e d t o d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s , these a c t i v i t i e s a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s

i n t e r - r e l a t e d and i n t e r d e p e n d e n t i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f a common o r g a n i z a t i o n a l product.

The second r e l a t i o n s h i p , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y , i s based upon the f a c t t h a t a f o r -

mal o r g a n i z a t i o n i s made up o f s u b - u n i t s , each c o n s i s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y o f a

supervisor and a group o f s u b o r d i n a t e s engaged i n a s e t o f a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h a r e

f u n c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r more c l o s e l y t h a n t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f o t h e r sub-

units. P r o x i m i t y has t o do w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n g e o g r a p h i c a l space, and

i s measured i n terms o f the number o f boundaries i n t e r p o s e d between two p o s i t i o n s .

The r e m a i n i n g two r e l a t i o n s h i p s , s t a t u s - a u t h o r i t y and p o w e r - - c o n s t i t u t e an o r g a n i z a -

t i o n ' s s o l u t i o n mechanisms f o r i t s problems o f c o - o r d i n a t i o n and c o n t r o l . The f o l -

lowing few pages s p e l l o u t i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l b o t h t h e c o n c e p t u a l and o p e r a t i o n a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f these f o u r s e t s o f i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
 9-3

1. F u n c t i o n a l Dependence

To the e x t e n t t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n of labor creates pairs of posi-

t i o n s f o r w h i c h adequate a c t i v i t y performance of one position is requisite to the

adequate performance o f the second, these p o s i t i o n s may be s a i d t o be functionally

interdependent. I n the I n t e n s i v e s t u d y , t h e s e l e c t i o n of r o l e senders t o be inter-

viewed i n leach c l u s t e r was determined i n p a r t by the f o c a l person's n o m i n a t i o n s o f

persons wttose job performance most " a f f e c t e d h i s own. There was n e v e r t h e l e s s some

v a r i a b i l i t y among r o l e senders i n the e x t e n t t o which the f o c a l person depended on

them. Moreover, dependence i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s y m m e t r i c a l , and t h e r e was somewhat

g r e a t e r v a r i a t i o n among r o l e senders i n the e x t e n t t o w h i c h they depended on the focal

i

person.

I n t h e measurement o f the f u n c t i o n a l dependence o f each r o l e sender on the focal

p e r s o n , r o l e senders were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a l i s t o f the major a c t i v i t i e s of t h e focal

p o s i t i o n and asked, c o n c e r n i n g each a c t i v i t y :

"From the s t a n d p o i n t o f how i t a f f e c t s your own j o b , how much does i t
c o n c e r n you t h a t t h i s gets done p r o p e r l y ? "

The f u n c t i o n a l dependence of a r o l e sender on a f o c a l p e r s o n was determined by the

p e r c e n t a g e o f the l a t t e r s a c t i v i t i e s which the r o l e sender i n d i c a t e d

!
on a four-point,

f i x e d a l t e r n a t i v e s c a l e concerned him at l e a s t "Somewhat."

2 a Proximity

The d i v i s i o n of l a b o r i n . a n o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t s not o n l y I n the differentiation

of positions a c c o r d i n g t o the a c t i v i t i e s assigned t o them and the i n t e g r a t i o n o f these

positions a c c o r d i n g to. the p r i n c i p l e o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence. This d i v i s i o n a l s o i n -

v o l v e s the g r o u p i n g of p o s i t i o n s i n t o s i m i l a r l y - o r i e n t e d s u b - u n i t s which constitute

organizational work-groups, s e c t i o n s , departments, and divisions. Such c o m p a r t m e n t a l i -

z a t i d n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l positions i n t o d i s t i n c t departments separated by boundaries

i

of function and a u t h o r i t y was shown (Chapter 5) t o be an i m p o r t a n t source o f r o l e con-

flict. We expected t h a t the concept o f i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary would.be useful

 9-4

a l s o i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s between r o l e s . Accordingly, each p a i r

( f o c a l p e r s o n and r o l e sender) i n t h e i n t e n s i v e study was c h a r a c t e r i z e d according

t o t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y ( t h e number and c h a r a c t e r of the i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

boundaries Interposed between t h e two p o s i t i o n s ) . F i v e degrees o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ,

p r o x i m i t y were d i s t i n g u i s h e d :

-Role sender and f o c a l person are i n t h e same work s e c t i o n ( t h e s m a l l e s t

recognized work-group);

-Role sender and f o c a l person a r e i n r e l a t e d work s e c t i o n s o f t h e same

department ;

-Role sender and f o c a l person a r e i n t h e same department, b u t t h e i r work

sections are otherwise u n r e l a t e d ;

-Role sender i s i n a d i f f e r e n t department from f o c a l p e r s o n , b u t a c t s as a

m a j o r l i a i s o n between t h e two departments;

-Role sender i s i n a d i f f e r e n t department from f o c a l person and does n o t

a c t as a l i a i s o n between t h e two departments.

Since t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e l i n e a t i o n o f work s e c t i o n s and departments i s based

on t h e degree o f i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s subsumed under these u n i t s , f u n c t i o n a l

dependence and p r o x i m i t y s h o u l d b e ' p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . I n the present data, the

measures o f these two v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e .30 ( p < ^ 0 1 ) . This c o r r e l a t i o n , w h i l e

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our treatment o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence

and p r o x i m i t y as s e p a r a t e i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Some i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e q u a l i t i e s

w h i c h d i f f e r e n t i a t e these two v a r i a b l e s may be o b t a i n e d from t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h

the amount o f communication between f o c a l p e r s o n and r o l e sender. Functional dependence

correlates .35 w i t h t h i s communication as e s t i m a t e d by t h e f o c a l person and .34 w i t h

t h i s communication as e s t i m a t e d by t h e r o l e sender. C o r r e l a t i o n s between p r o x i m i t y

and these same two communication v a r i a b l e s a r e somewhat h i g h e r , .52 and .46

respectively. These c o r r e l a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s suggest t h a t t h e p r o x i m i t y

v a r i a b l e , t h o u g h d e f i n e d i n terms o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r a t h e r t h a n p h y s i c a l space
 9-5
. . . j -
r .

may a l s o i m p l j i j p h y s i c a l closeness. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y c l o s e r o l e sender and f o c a l

- - - • \>

person may b e [more l i k e l y t h a n t h e f u n c t i o n a l l y dependent p a i r t o share a common o f f i c e ,

or g e t i n o n t h e same s t o p o f t h e c o f f e e c a r t . They are l i k e l y t o have c o n s i d e r a b l e

opportunity f o r informal communication. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e f u n c t i o n a l l y dependent

•] -

p a i r - - f o r e m a n and t i m e - s t u d y e n g i n e e r , f o r example--are more l i k e l y t o communicate

m a i n l y when i t i s necessary t o performance o f t h e i r j o b s . The c o i n c i d e n c e o f p h y s i c a l

and organizational proximity also implies t h a t a r o l e sender who i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y

d i s t a n t f r o m t h e f o c a l person w i l l be u n f a v o r a b l y s i t u a t e d f o r o b s e r v i n g h i s b e h a v i o r - -

a c i r c u m s t a n c e which p e c u l i a r l y shapes h i s r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e f o c a l p e r s o n .

3. S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

The formal control structures o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s are c o n v e n t i o n a l l y represented i n

"organization charts." I n such c h a r t s each o f f i c e i s drawn as a box d i r e c t l y below

the o f f i c e b y w h i c h i t s a c t i v i t i e s are t o be s u p e r v i s e d and c o - o r d i n a t e d , and a l i n e

connects t h e two boxes as a symbol o f t h e bond o f f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y . Looked a t from

a somewhat d i f f e r e n t v i e w , however, a f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t may be viewed as de-

f i n i n g two s e t s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - - r e l a t i v e status and f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y .

Both a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 1 , which can be viewed as a p o r t i o n o f a p r o t o t y p i c a l

organization chart. The l e f t hand column r e p r e s e n t s f o u r p o s i t i o n s o f s t a t u s and

i
a u t h o r i t y , r e l a t i v e t o the f o c a l position.

S u p e r i o r — R o l e sender i s two o r more l e v e l s above f o c a l person i n a d i r e c t

l i n e o f command ( i . e . , r o l e sender i s t h e d i r e c t s u p e r i o r o f
f o c a l person's d i r e c t s u p e r i o r ) .

S u p e r i o r ^ - - R o l e sender i s d i r e c t s u p e r i o r o f f o c a l person.

Subordinate-^--Role sender i s d i r e c t s u b o r d i n a t e o f f o c a l person.

S u b o r d i n a t e 2 - - R o l e sender i s two o r more l e v e l s below f o c a l person i n a

d i r e c t l i n e o f command ( i . e . , r o l e sender i s a d i r e c t sub-
o r d i n a t e o f one o f f o c a l person's d i r e c t s u b o r d i n a t e s ) .

For these f o u r p o s i t i o n s i n a d i r e c t l i n e o f command w i t h t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n , r e l a -

tive status and f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s a r e i d e n t i c a l ; t o be "above" a p e r s o n i n

status also implies t h a t one has f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over him.

I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here
 9-6

Role Senders and F o c a l Person a r e i n Role Senders and Focal Person a r e n o t

Same D i r e c t L i n e o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n Same D i r e c t L i n e o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Command Command

Indirect
Superior2
Super i o ^

A
Superior. Indirect
Superior^
Status

Focal P o s i t i o n

Subordinate^ Indirect
Subordinate.

Indirect
Subordinate2
Subordinate2

Figure 1.

N i n e P o s i t i o n s o f S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y , i n R e l a t i o n t o a Focal P o s i t i o n

i
 9-7

The r i g h t hand column o f F i g u r e 1 r e p r e s e n t s f i v e o t h e r p o s i t i o n s w h i c h m i g h t ,

f o r i n s t a n c e , be i n a department a d j a c e n t t o t h a t o f t h e f o c a l person. These p o s i -
t i o n s a r e a l i k e i n t h a t t h e r e a r e no bonds o f f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y l i n k i n g them d i r e c t l y
t o t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n ; b u t these f i v e p o s i t i o n s may n o n e t h e l e s s be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n
terms o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s t a t u s , i n a manner analogous t o t h a t a p p l i e d t o t h e d i r e c t -
l i n e - p f command groups:

I n d i r e c t S u p e r i o ^ — RAle sender's o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s comparable t o .

t h a t o f S u p e r i o r 2 above, b u t he has no d i r e c t a u t h o r i t y
over t h e f o c a l p e r s o n .

I n d i r e c t S u p e r i o r s — R o l e sender's o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s comparable t o
t h a t o f S u p e r i o r ^ above, b u t has no d i r e c t a u t h o r i t y
over t h e f o c a l p e r s o n .

Peer--Role sender and f o c a l person have t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s .

I n d i r e c t Subordinate-^--Role sender's o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s comparable

t o t h a t o f S u b o r d i n a t e ^ above, b u t he has no d i r e c t
a u t h o r i t y over t h e f o c a l person.

I n d i r e c t Subordinate2~-Role sender's o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s comparable

t o t h a t o f Subordihate2 above, b u t he has no d i r e c t
a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e f o c a l person.

Use o f t h i s d u a l r e l a t i v e s t a t u s - f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y code on t h e f o l l o w i n g pages w i l l

not only permit us t o d e s c r i b e m e a n i n g f u l l y t h e r e l a t i o n s between any p a i r o f p o s i -

t i o n s on an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t ; i t w i l l a l s o enable us i n e f f e c t t o c o n t r o l on r e - !

l a t i v e s t a t u s i n e x p l o r i n g t h e concomitants o f f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y and v i c e v e r s a .

4. Power

F o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t s are a t b e s t i d e a l i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e channels

t h r o u g h w h i c h c o n t r o l over o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i s e x e r c i s e d . Their divergence

f r o m t h e a c t u a l power s t r u c t u r e o f o r g a n i z a t i d n s i s notorious. Among t h e s e v e r a l

bases o f s o c i a l power, o n l y t h a t o f l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y i s w h o l l y i m p l i e d by t h e

f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e , and even t h i s depends i n p r a c t i c e on t h e degree t o w h i c h members

adopt t h e v a l u e s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n which c o n f e r s such l e g i t i m a c y . Other power d i f -

ferentials are t y p i c a l l y conferred along w i t h f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y — f o r example, d i f f e r -

e n t i a l access t o i n f o r m a t i o n or resources f o r r e w a r d i n g o r c o e r c i n g . Yet t h e extent

 9-8

t o w h i c h f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s i m p l y such d i f f e r e n t i a l s i s an open i s s u e ,

and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r such " i n f o r m a l " power bases as appeals t o p e r s o n a l friend-

s h i p have been even l e s s e x p l o r e d . The p r e s e n t study, w i l l t r e a t power i n two ways:

i n terms o f a g l o b a l index o f the amount o f i n f l u e n c e a g i v e n r o l e sender can e x e r t

over the f o c a l person; i n terms o f a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s e t o f measures each r e p r e -

s e n t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r base o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l power.

I n e s t i m a t i n g the o v e r a l l power o f a r o l e sender, data were drawn from s e v e r a l

s e c t i o n s o f the r o l e - s e n d e r i n t e r v i e w : open-ended q u e s t i o n s on what he would do

were the f o c a l person t o f a i l t o p e r f o r m h i s j o b a c t i v i t i e s ; q u e s t i o n s concerning

what the r o l e sender had done I n the past when he had t r o u b l e g e t t i n g the f o c a l

person t o do something; a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g what the r o l e sender c o u l d do as a l a s t

r e s o r t i f t h e f o c a l person f a i l e d t o comply w i t h h i s w i s h e s ; and a s e r i e s o f f i x e d -

a l t e r n a t i v e q u e s t i o n s c o v e r i n g v a r i o u s bases o f power w h i c h the r o l e sender c o u l d

use o r had used i n the p a s t . From these s e v e r a l sources, and from d e s c r i p t i o n s and

outcomes o f p a s t c o n f l i c t s between r o l e sender and f o c a l person, each r o l e sender

was assigned a p o s i t i o n on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e i n d i c a t i n g h i s o v e r a l l power over t h e

f o c a l person. Inter-coder r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h i s o v e r a l l power code was .90.

Power and Formal A u t h o r i t y R e l a t i o n s h i p s . To what degree do t h e f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y

r e l a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s correspond t o the observed power r e l a t i o n s ? For the o r -

g a n i z a t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , t h i s q u e s t i o n i s answered i n T a b l e 1.

T h i s t a b l e shows r e l a t i v e s t a t u s and f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o the independently

o b t a i n e d code o f o v e r a l l power. When r o l e sender and f o c a l person are i n t h e same

d i r e c t l i n e o f command ( l e f t column o f Table 1 ) ^ Jthe power o f t h e r o l e sender i n -

creases m o n o t o n i c a l l y w i t h h i s s t a t u s r e l a t i v e t o t h e f o c a l person. This increase

i s n o t , however, l i n e a r ; a gross power d i f f e r e n t i a l occurs between the f o c a l person's

d i r e c t s u p e r i o r s and s u b o r d i n a t e s , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r i n g

w i t h i n t h e s e two groups. Among r o l e senders n o t i n a d i r e c t l i n e o f command w i t h

the f o c a l p e r s o n , t h e power o f the r o l e sender over the f o c a l person i s a l s o a

 9-9

monotomic f u n c t i o n o f r e l a t i v e s t a t u s . The power o f " i n d i r e c t " r o l e senders i s

g e n e r a l l y l e s s t h a n t h e power o f senders i n a d i r e c t l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y w i t h t h e f o c a l

p e r s o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y where h i s s t a t u s s u p e r i o r s a r e concerned. The power o f peers

over t h e f o c a l person i s l e s s than t h a t o f any s u p e r i o r s t a t u s groups, b u t g r e a t e r

than t h a t o f any o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .
Insert_Table_l_about_here
These r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p r e s e n t o n l y i n a v e r y g l o b a l way t h e complex a s s o c i a t i o n s

between an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s a u t h o r i t y and power s t r u c t u r e s . I n every e f f e c t i v e role

sending t h e r e must be some power i m p l i c a t i o n . The sender n o t o n l y communicates what

he expects t h e f o c a l person t o do; f o r t h e f o c a l person t h e r e a r e i n e v i t a b l y conse-

quences o f compliance o r noncompliance w i t h t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s . These consequences

express t h e base o f s o c i a l power on which a g i v e n r o l e sender r e l i e s i n a t t e m p t i n g

t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o c a l person. As we s h a l l see, people d i f f e r i n t h e i n f l u e n c e

t e c h n i q u e s w i t h which they e n f o r c e t h e i r r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s are

r e l a t e d t o m a t t e r s o f f o r m a l s t a t u s and a u t h o r i t y .

Data o n s p e c i f i c i n f l u e n c e ' techniques were o b t a i n e d from t h e responses o f r o l e

senders t o a s e r i e s o f open-ended q u e s t i o n s a s k i n g each one what he would do i f t h e

f o c a l person f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m h i s j o b i a c t i v i t i e s p r o p e r l y , what he had done i n t h e

past when h e had t r o u b l e I n f l u e n c i n g t h e f o c a l person, and what he c o u l d do as a

l a s t r e s o r t t o i n f l u e n c e him. Responses t o these q u e s t i o n s were coded i n t o a p r i o r i

c a t e g o r i e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a wide v a r i e t y o f ways i n which one person might i n f l u e n c e

another. T h a t a given.response was coded i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y d i d n o t neces-

s a r i l y mean t h a t r o l e sender had ever a c t u a l l y used t h i s t e c h n i q u e - - o n l y t h a t he

"might" use i t . This " m i g h t " i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e respondent f e l t t h a t the technique

was a v a i l a b l e t o him and t h a t he was n o t c o n s t r a i n e d from u s i n g i t i f necessary.

Most c o n s p i c u o u s among i n f l u e n c e techniques based on f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y are d i r e c t orders

and commands. Table 2 p r e s e n t s t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between r e l a t i v e s t a t u s and t h e

percentage o f r o l e senders m e n t i o n i n g t h a t t h e y m i g h t order o r command t h e f o c a l

person t o comply w i t h t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s . C l e a r l y those most able and w i l l i n g t o

 9-10

Table 9-1

Mean Power o f Role Sender over F o c a l Person as ;

F u n c t i o n o f t h e i r R e l a t i v e S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

Direct Indirect
Mean N Mean N

Superior,, 4.5 (25) 3.5 (6)

Superior^ 4.1 (52) 2.7 (23)

Peer 2.4 (70)

Subordinate^ 2.0 (137) 2.3 (37)

Subordinate2 1.8 (10) 1.3 (12)

•i
 9-11

e x e r c i s e t h i s l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y over the f o c a l person are h i s s u p e r i o r s i n the

d i r e c t c h a i n o f command. The e n t r i e s o f zero and near-zero i n t h e r e m a i n i n g c e l l s

i n d i c a t e t h a t the h i e r a r c h i c a l p l a n i s w e l l - a c t u a l i z e d . Even the t o u c h o f o r g a n i -

z a t i o n a l a n a r c h y i m p l i e d by t h e e n t r i e s o f 3% and 47* i n the i n d i r e c t column may be

s p u r i o u s ; a response t h a t n
I t e l l him t o do i t " would have been coded as an o r d e r ,

even i f i t were i n t e n d e d as a r e q u e s t .

I n s e r t Table 2 about here

P a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n Table 2 i s t h e f a c t t h a t l e s s f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e s

t o l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y are made by immediate s u p e r i o r s ( D i r e c t S u p e r i o r s ^ ) than by

those more remote i n the h i e r a r c h y ( D i r e c t S u p e r i o r s 2 ) . Since a person works more

c l o s e l y w i t h h i s immediate s u p e r i o r than w i t h t h e person two l e v e l s above him, i t i s

l i k e l y t h a t a f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s become more i m p o r t a n t . The d e s i r e o f an immediate

s u p e r i o r t o develop and m a i n t a i n these a f f e c t i v e t i e s might reduce h i s w i l l i n g n e s s

t o use such "naked" i n f l u e n c e techniques as d i r e c t commands.

A n o t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s d i f f e r e n t i a l access t o resources

f o r r e w a r d i n g compliance or p u n i s h i n g l a c k o f compliance w i t h ones e x p e c t a t i o n s .

Tables 3a and 3b show the p r o p o r t i o n o f r o l e senders o f d i f f e r i n g s t a t u s who mention

two k i n d s o f rewards as sources o f t h e i r power over the f o c a l p e r s o n : recommending

him f o r a r a i s e , or f o r a p r o m o t i o n . As w i t h l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y , c o n t r o l o f b o t h

these rewards i s c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the hands o f ones d i r e c t s u p e r i o r s .

I n s e r t Table 3 about here

W i t h one i m p o r t a n t e x c e p t i o n , the r e i n s o f c o e r c i v e power a l s o t e n d t o be h e l d

by ones s u p e r i o r s . Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c i n d i c a t e t h a t s u p e r i o r s o f the f o c a l person

m e n t i o n more t h a n o t h e r s r e c o u r s e t o t h r e e t y p e s o f c o e r c i v e power: transfer, dis-

m i s s a l , and b l o c k i n g p r o m o t i o n o r s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s .

I n s e r t Table 4 about here

 Table 9-2

P e r c e n t a g e o f Role Senders R e p o r t i n g Being A b l e t o Order t h e

Compliance o f the .Focal Person, a s j a F u n c t i o n o f S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

Direct Indirect
1 Base N %. Base N

Superior 60% (25) 0% (6)

Superlor^ 24% (52) 4% (23)

Peer 4% (70)

Subordinate^ 3% (137) 3% (37)

Subordinate2 0% (10) 0% (12)

 1

\
\ •

1
I
'\
-.1
<\

\ Table 9-3

Reward Power o f Role Senders Over t h e F o c a l Person, as a

F u n c t i o n o f t h e i r R e l a t i v e S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

3a. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g They M i g h t Recommend t h e F o c a l Person

f o r a Raise as a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Him

Direct Indirect
I Base N % Base N

A l l Superiors 70% (77) 10% (29)

Peers 11% (70)

A l l Subordinates 2% (147) 4% (49)

3b. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g They M i g h t Recommend t h e F o c a l Person

f o r a Promotion as a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Him

D i r e c t \, * . Indirect . 1

% Base N % Base N

All Superiors 48%' (77) 3% (29)

Peers • 16% (70)

A l l Subordinates 1% (147) 2% (49)

 9-14

T a b l e 9-4 :

C o e r c i v e Power o f Role Senders o v e r t h e F o c a l Person, as a

F u n c t i o n o f t h e R e l a t i v e S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

4a. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g Tbey M i g h t T h r e a t e n t h e F o c a l Person

w i t h T r a n s f e r as.a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Hira .0

% Base N

A l l Superiors 28% (106)

Peers , 4% (70)

A l l Subordinates 2% (196)

4b. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g They M i g h t T h r e a t e n the: F o c a l Person

w i t h D i s m i s s a l , as a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Him

£ Base N

A l l Superiors 24% (106)

Peers 1% (70)

A l l Subordiantes 1% (196)

4c. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g They M i g h t T h r e a t e n t h e F o c a l Person

w i t h B l o c k i n g S a l a r y I n c r e a s e o r Promotion as a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Him

% Base N

A l l Superiors 12% (106)

Peers 1% (70)

A l l Subordinates 0% (196)

4d. Percentage o f Role Senders I n d i c a t i n g They M i g h t W i t h h o l d A i d , I n f o r m a t i o n

o r C o - o p e r a t i o n f r o m t h e F o c a l Person as a Means o f I n f l u e n c i n g Him

3 Base N

A l l Superiors 19% (106)

Peers 32% (70)

All Subordinates 44% (196)

 9-15

I n marked c o n t r a s t , t h e r e i s one source o f c o e r c i v e power w h i c h ones s u p e r i o r s

are r e l a t i v e l y r e l u c t a n t t o use, t h a t o f w i t h h o l d i n g a i d , i n f o r m a t i o n , o r c o - o p e r a t i o n

( T a b l e 4d) . Such r e l u c t a n c e i s v e r y l i k e l y a f u n c t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e per-

formance o f t h e u n i t would be j e o p a r d i z e d were such c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h h e l d . I n the

extreme c a s e , such b e h a v i o r would amount t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u i c i d e f o r t h e s u p e r i o r ,

s i n c e he i s d i r e c t l y accountable f o r f a i l u r e s o f t h e f o c a l person. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h i s f i n d i n g , s u p e r i o r s d e c l a r e d themselves more w i l l i n g than any o t h e r group t o

remedy t h e performance d e f i c i e n c i e s o f t h e f o c a l person by "working w i t h h i m and

helping him." T h i r t y per cent o f s u p e r i o r s i n d i c a t e d they would work w i t h and help

t h e f o c a l p e r s o n i n t h i s e v e n t u a l i t y ; t h e comparable f i g u r e f o r peers was 18% and

that f o r subordinates o n l y 11%. Not o n l y a r e ones s u p e r i o r s most u n w i l l i n g t o r i s k

l o s s o f performance by w i t h h o l d i n g h e l p ; they a r e most ready t o g i v e h e l p , s h o u l d

performance problems a r i s e .

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e l a t i v e s t a t u s group most ready t o w i t h h o l d a i d , i n f o r -

m a t i o n o r c o - o p e r a t i o n are t h e s u b o r d i n a t e s two l e v e l s below t h e f o c a l p e r s o n and i n

t h e same c h a i n o f command. E i g h t y p e r cent o f t h i s group mention w i t h h o l d i n g as a

means o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h e f o c a l person, and they a r e i d e a l l y s i t u a t e d t o e x e r c i s e such

control. They a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y removed from t h e f o c a l person t h a t they do n o t s u f f e r

t h e immediate r e p e r c u s s i o n s of his d i f f i c u l t i e s . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e y ( u n l i k e the

i n d i r e c t s u b o r d i n a t e s o f t h e same s t a t u s ) a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l

machinery t o know e x a c t l y where and how t o throw the monkey wrench so t h a t i t w i l l

c r e a t e maximum d i f f i c u l t y f o r t h e f o c a l person and minimum d i f f i c u l t y f o r themselves.

Few r e s p o n d e n t s I n d i c a t e d spontaneously t h a t t h e y would use p e r s o n a l friendship

as a means o f i n f l u e n c i n g t h e f o c a l person. Some i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r - g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s

are a p p a r e n t , however, i n t h e a d m i t t e d use o f such f r i e n d s h i p appeals on p a s t occasions.

T a b l e 5 i n d i c a t e s t h a t such appeals a r e most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f r o l e senders who a r e

n o t i n t h e same l i n e o f command w i t h t h e f o c a l person. Only t h e remote subordinates

i n t h i s l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y ( D i r e c t S u b o r d i n a t e s 2 ) r e p o r t t h a t they never have used '

 9-16

such a p p e a l s , and, c o n s i s t e n t l y enough, 80 p e r c e n t o f these people have a l r e a d y

d e c l a r e d themselves w i l l i n g t o w i t h h o l d a i d , i n f o r m a t i o n o r c o - o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e sake
o f i n f l u e n c i n g t h e f o c a l person. That f o r each r e l a t i v e s t a t u s l e v e l i n i n - d i r e c t
l i n e o f command groups a r e the more l i k e l y t o use f r i e n d s h i p appeals suggests t h a t i n
f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s such appeals a r e used l a r g e l y t o compensate f o r d e f i c i e n c i e s i n
o t h e r types o f power. T h i s f i n d i n g s u b s t a n t i a t e s , moreover, an assumption made i n the
d i s c u s s i o n o f boundaries (Chapter 5) namely, t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r a c t i n g across de-
p a r t m e n t a l l i n e s must r e l y h e a v i l y on p e r s o n a l i z e d f r i e n d s h i p appeals i n i n f l u e n c i n g
one a n o t h e r s b e h a v i o r . T h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o m o d i f y each o t h e r s b e h a v i o r as b e s t s u i t s
t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l needs a r e based on' a f f e c t i v e b o n d s — b o n d s w h i c h a r e o f t e n c h r o n i c a l l y
s t r a i n e d by t h e demands o f o t h e r s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e departments.

I n s e r t Table 5 about here

The p r e c e e d i n g d a t a on power r e l a t i o n s h i p s have i n d i c a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e b u t n o t

complete correspondence between t h e dimensions o f power and s t a t u s - a u t h o r i t y .

i-

S u p e r i o r s i n t h e same c h a i n o f command may n o t o n l y o r d e r compliance on t h e b a s i s o f

t h e i r l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y b u t a l s o have c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o l over rewards and

punishments.

V i e w i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n from t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e f o c a l person, we f i n d t h a t n o t

a l l t y p e s o f power a r e c o n c e n t r a t e d i n t h e hands o f h i s d i r e c t s u p e r i o r s . These

s u p e r i o r s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y r e f r a i n from e x e r t i n g c o e r c i v e power where i t m i g h t im-

pede h i s performance and r e f l e c t on t h e i r own s u p e r v i s o r y competence. Certain of his

s u b o r d i n a t e s , however, a r e o n l y t o o ready t o a t t e m p t t o c o n t r o l h i m by p a s s i v e l y

t h r e a t e n i n g t o w i t h h o l d t h e a i d o r i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h he r e q u i r e s . S t i l l another basis

o f power, a p p e a l s t o p e r s o n a l f r i e n d s h i p , a r e used most r e a d i l y by r o l e senders n o t

i n t h e same l i n e o f command as t h e f o c a l person. While t h e l i n e s o f a u t h o r i t y as

d e s c r i b e d o n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t c o r r e s p o n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h those i n d i c a t e d

by t h e o v e r a l l power code, t h e r e a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s i m p o r t a n t q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s
 9-17

T a b l e 9-5

Percentage o f Role Senders R e p o r t i n g t h e Use o f F r i e n d s h i p Appeals

i n I n f l u e n c i n g t h e Focal Person, as a F u n c t i o n o f S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

Direct Indirect
% Base N % Base N

Superior 17% (25) 33% (6)

Superior-^ , 18% (52) 48% (23)

Peer 37% (70)

Subordinate^ 20% (137) 27% (37)

Subordinate2 0% (10) 42% (12)

 9-18

i n t h e power bases by means o f w h i c h d i f f e r e n t r o l e senders a t t a i n c o n t r o l o v e r the

f o c a l person.

Sent P r e s s u r e and Role R e l a t i o n s . The application o f the ensemble model t o the

analysi's^of r o l e s t r e s s leads us t o p r e d i c t t h a t a s t r e s s f u l r o l e i s n o t created i n

an u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f a s h i o n by a l l r o l e senders. On the c o n t r a r y , we would e x p e c t

s t r e s s f u l r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s t o emanate from senders who bear p a r t i c u l a r f o r m a l r e l a -

tionships t o the f o c a l person. Four such r e l a t i o n s h i p s have a l r e a d y been proposed:

functional dependence, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l proximity, r e l a t i v e s t a t u s , and power. We have

seen a l s o t h a t r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s are e n f o r c e d by. d i f f e r e n t i n f l u e n c e techniques and

r e s t on d i f f e r e n t bases of power, depending on the s t a t u s of the sender i n r e l a t i o n

t o the f o c a l person.

We w a n t now t o c o n s i d e r t h r e e s p e c i f i c k i n d s o f s t r e s s w h i c h r o l e senders can

c r e a t e f o r t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , and t o ask f o r each whether i t i s l i k e l y t o originate

w i t h r o l e s e n d e r s who bear c e r t a i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence, proximity,

status and power t o the f o c a l person. Role c o n f l i c t , measured i n terms of s e n t p r e s s u r e ,

i s the f i r s t o f these s t r e s s e s .

The I n d e x o f Role C o n f l i c t used i n the i n t e n s i v e study i s a c l u s t e r - l e v e l average

o f t h e p r e s s u r e s away from the s t a t u s quo s e n t t o the f o c a l person, by h i s r o l e -

senders. For the p r e s e n t i n t e r p e r s o n a l a n a l y s i s o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , the unaveraged

sent p r e s s u r e i n d e x i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e measure, s i n c e i t i n d i c a t e s the degree t o

w h i c h each r o l e sender pressures a p a r t i c u l a r , f o c a l person t o a l t e r h i s b e h a v i o r .

Tables 6, 7, 8 and 10 show, the p o s i t i o n s from w h i c h f o c a l persons tend t o r e c e i v e

a h i g h d e g r e e o f p r e s s u r e toward change. These t a b l e s y i e l d four general conclusions:

1. The amount o f p r e s s u r e a r o l e sender sends t o a f o c a l person i s a d i r e c t

function of t h e i r organizational proximity.

W i t h i n a g i v e n r o l e s e t , the f o c a l person r e c e i v e s g r e a t e r p r e s s u r e f r o m r o l e

senders i n h i s department than from those o u t s i d e i t (Table 6 ) . The r o l e senders

who put l e a s t p r e s s u r e on the f o c a l person are o u t s i d e h i s department but i n the role

 9-19

o f l i a i s o n between t h e i r own department and h i s . (The J: o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between

Sent P r e s s u r e Index means o f t h i s group v s . a l l o t h e r groups combined is significant

a t t h e .05 level.)

I n s e r t Table 6 about here

The l a t t e r d i f f e r e n c e i s q u i t e germane t o t h e problem o f boundary s t r e s s , dis-

cussed i n C h a p t e r 5. While a boundary p o s i t i o n was shown t o be s t r e s s f u l f o r the

occupant, i t does n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t p r e s s u r e w i l l be sent t o him f r o m r o l e

senders beyond t h i s boundary. Only i f the f o c a l person acceeds w h o l l y t o t h e expecta-

t i o n s o f r o l e senders w i t h i n h i s own department w i l l t h i s be t h e case. Credit

E x p e d i t e r , whose s i t u a t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 14, g e n e r a l l y resolves h i s

boundary c o n f l i c t s i n f a v o r o f a department n o t h i s own; i n t h i s case r o l e senders i n h i s

own department are v i r t u a l l y the o n l y source o f c o m p l a i n t s . That a l i a i s o n group

s h o u l d p l a c e l e a s t p r e s s u r e on t h e f o c a l p e r s o n adds w e i g h t t o a p o i n t made e a r l i e r - -

t h a t a l i a i s o n person, l a c k i n g f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over those o u t s i d e h i s department

must r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e f r i e n d s h i p these o u t s i d e r s have f o r him. Since i t has a l -

ready been shown (Chapter 3) t h a t sent p r e s s u r e and i t s r e s u l t a n t c o n f l i c t weakens

a f f e c t i v e bonds, a r o l e sender w i t h l i a i s o n . r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s would be r e l u c t a n t t o .

p r e s s u r e t h e f o c a l person t o any g r e a t e x t e n t . To do so would e l i m i n a t e one o f h i s

p r i n c i p a l sources of c o n t r o l . The low p r e s s u r e b e h a v i o r o f t h e l i a i s o n person may

be, moreover, symptomatic o f the c o n f l i c t s o f the l i a i s o n r o l e . ' His department may

demand t h a t he p r e s s u r e t h e f o c a l person; b u t such p r e s s u r e , w h i l e perhaps tempo-

r a r i l y e f f e c t i v e , would l e s s e n h i s chances o f e x e r t i n g influence successfully I n the

future.

2. The a s s o c i a t i o n between sent p r e s s u r e and t h e f u n c t i o n a l dependence o f t h e r o l e

sender on t h e f o c a l person tends t o be c u r v i l i n e a r , w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p r e s s u r e coming

from those who are o n l y m o d e r a t e l y dependent on t h e f o c a l p e r s o n ( T a b l e 7 ) . ,

I n s e r t Table '7 about here

 9-20

Table 9-6

Mean Sent Pressure as a F u n c t i o n o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Proximity

P r o x i m i t y o f Focal Mean
Person and Role Sender N
Sent P r e s s u r e
Same Department 291
50.7
D i f f e r e n t Departments 90
48.4
P<<01

Table 9-7

Mean Sent Pressure as a F u n c t i o n o f F u n c t i o n a l Dependence

F u n c t i o n a l Dependence o f t h e

Role Sender' on t h e F o c a l Person Sent P r e s s u r e N

High 49.6 134

50.5 46

52.5 62

50.5 52

48.5 45

Low 49.2 . 42 P<05"

*p v a l u e s o f d i f f e r e n c e s between more t h a n two means a r e
.based on t h e F t e s t i n a one-way a n a l y s i s - o f - v a r i a n c e
T
 j 9-21
I
Two p r o p e r t i e s o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence w o r k i n g i n o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s are likely

t o have g e n e r a t e d t h i s c u r v i l i n e a r i t y . F i r s t , s i n c e a r o l e sender would be l i t t l e i n -

c l i n e d t o pay much a t t e n t i o n t o the f o c a l p o s i t i o n unlessj i t a f f e c t s h i s own j o b , we

would e x p e c t a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between f u n c t i o n a l dependence and sent p r e s s u r e .

Second, excessive p r e s s u r e on the f o c a l person i s l i k e l y t o provoke him t o a v o i d -

ance o r w i t h d r a w a l o f c o - o p e r a t i o n , e i t h e r o f which would be p o t e n t i a l l y d i s a s t r o u s

f o r a r o l e sender who i s h i g h l y dependent on him. Lest the h i g h l y dependent r o l e

sender s u f f e r the consequences o f b i t i n g the hand t h a t feeds him, he must e x e r c i s e

more c a u t i o n than o t h e r s i n t h e amount o f p r e s s u r e he e x e r t s . His s i t u a t i o n , l i k e

t h a t o f t h e l i a i s o n person i s somewhat touchy. The i n t e r a c t i o n o f these two aspects

o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence would generate a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between f u n c t i o n a l

dependence and sent p r e s s u r e such as t h a t f o u n d i n Table 7. A r o l e sender whose

functional dependence on t h e f o c a l person i s moderate acts i n c l o s e enough c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t h him t o " c a r e " what he does, b u t n o t c l o s e l y enough t o be o v e r - c a u t i o u s about

exerting p r e s s u r e on him.

3. A f o c a l person r e c e i v e s t h e g r e a t e s t amount o f p r e s s u r e from h i s d i r e c t

s u p e r i o r s , t h e l e a s t amount from h i s peers ( T a b l e 8 ) . Nevertheless, s i g n i f i c a n t

amounts o f p r e s s u r e stem from a l l s t a t u s l e v e l s - - s u p e r i c r s , p e e r s , and s u b o r d i n a t e s .

I n s e r t Table 8 about here

Among t h e s u p e r i o r r o l e senders i n t h e same chain o f command as the f o c a l

p e r s o n , s e n t pressure does n o t i n c r e a s e w i t h s t a t u s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , the immediate

supervisor ( D i r e c t S u p e r i o r ^ ) sends more p r e s s u r e than does t h e s u p e r v i s o r ' s super-

visor (Direct Superio^) - The d i r e c t o b s e r v a b i l i t y o f b e h a v i o r may help i n p a r t

to explain this difference. F i r s t - h a n d o b s e r v a t i o n o f h i s work renders s h o r t c o m i n g

o f t h e f o c a l person more obvious t o h i s immediate s u p e r v i s o r t h a n t o those still

h i g h e r i n management. The l a t t e r t y p i c a l l y r e c e i v e f i l t e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n about the

performance o f the f o c a l person. Moreover, t h e f i l t e r i n g agent i s the immediate

 9-22

o Table 9-8

Mean Sent Pressure as a F u n c t i o n o f S t a t u s and A u t h o r i t y

Direct Indirect
Mean N Mean N

Superior^ 51.3° (25) 50.7 (6)

Superior^ 53.6 (52) 49.7 (23)

Peer 48.5 (70)

Subordinate 49.5 (137) 50.4 (37)

1
Subordinate^ ' 50.2 (10) 48.8 (12)
9

P<<05
 9-23

s u p e r v i s o r who would be i n c l i n e d t o w i t h h o l d any n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n e i t h e r t o p r o t e c t

h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s o r h i s own r e p u t a t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y competence. Furthermore, o r -

g a n i z a t i o n a l protocol requires that a distant superior s h a l l n o t put d i r e c t pressure

on an employee; he i s supposed t o use t h e e m p l o y e e ^ immediate s u p e r v i s o r as an

intermediary. One goes down t h r o u g h c h a n n e l s , as w e l l as up. Consequently, t h e

p r e s s u r e f r o m ones immediate s u p e r v i s o r ( D i r e c t S u p e r i o r ^ ) has two components: h i s

p e r s o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h he t r a n s m i t s from h i s own s u p e r i o r .

The i n t e r m e d i a r y f u n c t i o n o f immediate s u p e r v i s o r s i s suggested by Table 9. This

t a b l e p r e s e n t s f o r t h e r e l a t i v e s t a t u s groups i n a d i r e c t l i n e o f command w i t h t h e

f o c a l p e r s o n t h e percentage r e p o r t i n g t h a t t h e y "go t h r o u g h channels o r some t h i r d

p e r s o n " i n e x e r t i n g i n f l u e n c e on t h e f o c a l p e r s o n . Seventy-two p e r cent o f t h e

s u p e r i o r s once removed r e p o r t "going t h r o u g h c h a n n e l s , " and these channels m i g h t

r e a s o n a b l y be assumed t o be t h e immediate s u p e r v i s o r , who has l i t t l e r e c o u r s e t o such

third parties.

I n s e r t Table 9 about here

4. R o l e senders who have t h e g r e a t e s t power over the f o c a l person r e p o r t

s e n d i n g t h e l e a s t p r e s s u r e t o him.

Table 10 p r e s e n t s the- average pressure e x e r t e d by r o l e senders h a v i n g f i v e

d i f f e r e n t degrees o f power over t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p v a l u e f o r t h e

F t e s t o f t h e o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f i v e means. When mean Sent Pressure

o f t h e h i g h e s t power group (46.9) i s compared t o t h e Sent Pressure mean o f a l l t h e

o t h e r g r o u p s combined, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between tbese means i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .

I n s e r t Table 10 about here

Two n o t m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s m i g h t be a p p l i e d t o t h i s sending o f

relatively low p r e s s u r e by t h e maximum power group. F i r s t , s i n c e t h e sent p r e s s u r e

i n d e x measured p r e s s u r e s away f r o m t h e p r e s e n t b e h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l p e r s o n , such

1
 9-24

T a b l e 9-9

Percentage o f Respondents R e p o r t i n g Using I n t e r m e d i a r i e s

i n E x e r t i n g I n f l u e n c e on t h e F o c a l Person

% Base N

Direct Superior2 11% (25)

Direct Superior^ 18% . (52)

Direct Subordinate^ 25% (137)

Direct Subordinate^ 50% (10)

P<°1

Table 9-10

Mean Sent Pressure as a F u n c t i o n o f t h e

Power o f Role Sender Over F o c a l Person

Power Code Sent Pressure N

High 5 46.9 46

4 52.9 30

3 50.6 88

2 49.0 149

Low 1 50.1 66

P<05
 9-25

p r e s s u r e s w o u l d be l e a s t l i k e l y t o emanate f r o m t h e group t o whose wishes he i s a l r e a d y

conforming. As a r e s u l t o f p a s t r o l e s e n d i n g s , t h e f o c a l person presumably i s c o n f o r m i n g

t o t h e w i s h e s o f those r o l e senders who have t h e g r e a t e s t power over him. At a given

moment, t h e r e f o r e , t h e p r e s s u r e s from these high-powered sources would be d i r e c t e d t o -

ward m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a t u s quo w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e contemporary embodiment o f t h e i r

former w i s h e s . A second p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f h i g h power w i t h

low sent p r e s s u r e l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t a low powered person m i g h t have t o exaggerate

the amount o f change he wishes i f he hopes t o c r e a t e change a t a l l . Such a r o l e sender

m i g h t have t o urge t h e f o c a l person t o move a m i l e b e f o r e he w i l l move an i n c h . On

the o t h e r h a n d , a r o l e sender who " f e e l s h i m s e l f c o m p l e t e l y a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e the

f o c a l p e r s o n , " ( t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e high-power coding c a t e g o r y ) i s n o t

l i k e l y t o e x a g g e r a t e h i s demands; he expects a one-to-one correspondence between t h e

magnitude o f h i s demand and t h e magnitude o f change i n f o c a l b e h a v i o r . A word from

Caesar may be more e f f e c t i v e than a p a r a g r a p h from one o f Caesar's l i e u t e n a n t s .

Such e x p l a n a t i o n s tempt one t o s p e c u l a t e about t h e f o c a l person who i s surrounded

by r o l e senders o f h i g h power who a r e p r e s s u r i n g him t o a l t e r , h i s b e h a v i o r . Data t o

be p r e s e n t e d l a t e r w i l l demonstrate t h a t such a s i t u a t i o n i s , as m i g h t be expected,

an u n u s u a l l y s t r e s s f u l one.

Job C o n c e p t i o n and Role R e l a t i o n s . I n i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e sources and consequences

of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r e s s w i t h i n t h e framework o f r o l e t h e o r y , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d i e s have

i d e n t i f i e d two g e n e r i c types o f s t r e s s - - r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e a m b i g u i t y . B o t h types

of s t r e s s were shown i n e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s

p l a c e d on t h e f o c a l r o l e occupant by h i s r o l e senders. The p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h e s o u r c e s o f c o n f l i c t - i n d u c i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s c o u l d be a s c r i b e d t o s p e c i f i c o r -

g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s v i s - a - v i s t h e f o c a l person. We want now t o c o n s i d e r t h e p a r a l l e l

q u e s t i o n f o r ambiguous r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s : t o what e x t e n t do they stem i n d i f f e r e n t

degree f r o m r o l e senders who occupy d i f f e r e n t f o r m a l p o s i t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

f o c a l person? To answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , we used t h e measure o f adequacy o f j o b con-

 9-26

c e p t i o n w h i c h was i n t r o d u c e d e a r l i e r (Chapter 5 ) . T h i s measure was d e r i v e d f o r each

r o l e sender by comparing h i s f r e e d e s c r i p t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s c o n s t i t u t i n g the

f o c a l r o l e w i t h a d e f i n i t i v e l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s which' we c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h a t r o l e 1

from o f f i c i a l sources and from t h e combined responses o f r o l e senders. In effect,

the Job C o n c e p t i o n Adequacy Score f o r each r o l e sender measures t h e e x t e n t t o which

h i s l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s f o r t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n reproduced t h e master l i s t . We assume

that the c o n d i t i o n o f maximum c l a r i t y would be achieved i f a l l r o l e senders expected

i d e n t i c a l b e h a v i o r s from t h e f o c a l person; we assume a l s o t h a t l a c k o f knowledge by

c- *
O

any r o l e sender o f a requirement imposed on t h e f o c a l person by a n o t h e r , constitutes

0
o

an immediate source o f a m b i g u i t y and, by e x t e n s i o n , o f c o n f l i c t . -

The e f f e c t s o f r o l e r e l a t i o n s on adequacy o f j o b c o n c e p t i o n are s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .

There i s , , f o r example, a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y of

a r o l e sender and t h e adequacy o f h i s n o t i o n s * o f t h e f o c a l j o b . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s

substantial, I n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g here w i t h a d r a s t i c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d

bit o f the organization. A l l people i n t e r v i e w e d were by d e f i n i t i o n r o l e senders f o r

the f o c a l p o s i t i o n , and i n t h a t sense o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y close to i t . A l l had a t l e a s t

-i

some knowledge o f t h e f o c a l job.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , among t h e f o u r types o f f o r m a l r o l e r e l a t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e

p r e s e n t c h a p t e r ( p r o x i m i t y , dependence, s t a t u s , and p o w e r ) , o n l y power has no meaning-

ful association w i t h t h e adequacy o f t h e r o l e sender's c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e f o c a l job.

The a s s o c i a t i o n s o f the remaining three r o l e - r e l a t i o n a l variables t o j o b conception

adequacy a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Tables 1 1 , 12 and 13 and may be summarized as f o l l o w s :

1. The adequacy o f a r o l e sender's c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e f o c a l j o b i s p o s i t i v e l y

related t o h i s organizational proximity t o i t (Table 1 1 ) .

I n s e r t Table 11 about here

The greatest single difference i n j o b c o n c e p t i o n adequacy occurs between t h e two

groups o f r o l e senders o u t s i d e t h e department o f t h e f o c a l person. Adequacy scores

 9-27

Table 9-11

Adequacy o f Role Sender's C o n c e p t i o n o f t h e F o c a l Job

as a F u n c t i o n o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P r o x i m i t y

P r o x i m i t y o f Role Sender and F o c a l Person Mean Adequacy o f N

Job Conception-
1
40.4 213
Same work s e c t i o n
38.4 54
R e l a t e d w o r k s e c t i o n s , same department
35.7 22
U n r e l a t e d w o r k s e c t i o n s , same department
34.7 50
D i f f e r e n t d e p a r t m e n t s , r o l e sender serves as l i a i s o n
D i f f e r e n t d e p a r t m e n t s , r o l e senders does n o t s e r v e
as l i a i s o n 28.6 39

p<T01
 9-28

o f people i n l i a i s o n r o l e s show t h a t t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f o c a l r o l e i s l i k e
t h a t o f i n s i d e r s r a t h e r than o u t s i d e r s , a f a c t which c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e -
ness and t o t h e i r own s t r e s s e s .

2. The a s s o c i a t i o n between j o b c o n c e p t i o n adequacy and r e l a t i v e s t a t u s i s

e x p l i c a b l e p a r t l y i n terms o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y , b u t i n d i c a t e s a l s o ones s u p e r i o r s

are l i k e l y t o know more about h i s j o b than ones s u b o r d i n a t e s .

Table 12 g i v e s t h e mean scores on adequacy o f j o b c o n c e p t i o n means f o r each o f

the n i n e r e l a t i v e s t a t u s groups. F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s the same d a t a g r a p h i c a l l y f o r the

f o u r r e l a t i v e s t a t u s groups i n a d i r e c t l i n e o f command w i t h t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n .

I n s e r t Table 12 about here

and

I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here

Two f a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w o u l d tend t o g i v e t h i s graph i t s non-

linear character. F i r s t , as we have seen, t h e more o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundaries between

a r o l e sender and a f o c a l p e r s o n , the l e s s adequate i s t h e sender's c o n c e p t i o n o f

the f o c a l j o b . Second, i f we h o l d p r o x i m i t y c o n s t a n t , s u p e r i o r s have a b e t t e r idea

o f the f o c a l j o b than do s u b o r d i n a t e s . Moreover, t h i s s u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e d i f f e r e n c e

i s more pronounced two l e v e l s away from t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n t h a n i t i s one l e v e l away

( a d i f f e r e n c e o f 9.5 vs. 4.8). These d i f f e r e n t i a l d r o p - o f f s r a i s e some p r o v o c a t i v e

questions. Would the d i f f e r e n c e s become more or l e s s pronounced were we t o compare

s u p e r i o r s and s u b o r d i n a t e s t h r e e , f o u r and f i v e l e v e l s away f r o m t h e f o c a l j o b ? How

many l e v e l s up o r down from the f o c a l p o s i t i o n must we go b e f o r e we f i n d the s u p e r i o r

and s u b o r d i n a t e curves b e g i n n i n g t o converge on the zero-adequacy p o i n t ? To what

e x t e n t does t h e g r e a t e r knowledge o f s u p e r i o r s r e f l e c t long t e n u r e , easy access t o

i n f o r m a t i o n , or i n t e l l e c t u a l ability?

3. The adequacy o f r o l e sender's c o n c e p t i o n o f the f o c a l j o b i s a p o s i t i v e

f u n c t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h h i s own j o b depends on it.

 9-29

Table 9-12

Adequacy o f Role Sender's Conception o f t h e F o c a l Job, as a

F u n c t i o n o f Status and A u t h o r i t y

Direct Indirect
Mean Mean
Adequacy N Adequacy N

Superior 37.0 (25) 42.3 (6)

2
Superior^ 44.1 (52) 34,7 (23)

Peer 38.0 (70)

Subordinate^ 39.3 (137) 29.7 (37)

Subordinate^ 27.5 (10) 36.9 (12)

Superior

Superior

Subordinate

Subordinate
25 30 35 40 45

F i g u r e 2. Job Conception Adequacy and R e l a t i v e Status

 9-30

While T a b l e 13 i n d i c a t e s an a p p r e c i a b l e a s s o c i a t i o n between adequacy o f j o b con-

c e p t i o n and f u n c t i o n a l dependence, i t p r o v i d e s o n l y a h i n t as t o t h e importance o f

f u n c t i o n a l dependence i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f j o b c o n c e p t i o n adequacy.

I n s e r t Table 13 about here

The full s t o r y i s found i n an a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o r r e l a t e s o f j o b con-

c e p t i o n adequacy c a r r i e d o u t t h r o u g h a L i p p i t t a n a l y s i s of variance. The L i p p i t t

a n a l y s i s d i f f e r s from c l a s s i c a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e techniques i n t h a t t h e p r e d i c t o r

v a r i a b l e s need n o t be u n c o r r e l a t e d i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n independent p r o b a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s

for the various predictor-criterion variable relationships. I n many r e s p e c t s this

technique i s analogous t o m u l t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s , p r o v i d i n g t h e m u l t i p l e

c o r r e l a t i o n o f a l l the p r e d i c t o r variables w i t h a single c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e . With

Job C o n c e p t i o n Adequacy as t h e p r e d i c t e d c r i t e r i o n variable, the L i p p i t t analysis

was used t o assess t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s between t h i s v a r i a b l e and s i x i n t e r p e r s o n a l

predictor variables: f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y ; o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y ; f u n c t i o n a l dependence

l e n g t h o f p e r s o n a l acquaintance; frequency o f communication; and frequency o f p e r s o n a l

encounter.

Among, t h e s e p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s , a l l o f w h i c h might p l a u s i b l y be r e l a t e d to,

knowledge o f t h e f o c a l j o b , t h e s i n g l e best p r e d i c t o r was t h e f u n c t i o n a l dependence

o f r o l e s e n d e r on f o c a l person. T h i s f i n d i n g c a s t s doubt on t h e " o s m o t i c " h y p o t h e s i s

that frequent contact a t work w i l l cause one person t o l e a r n about anothers j o b ; t h e

d a t a s u g g e s t i n s t e a d t h a t , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e amount o f i n t e r a c t i o n between two

p e o p l e , t h e r o l e sender w i l l l e a r n about t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e f o c a l j o b o n l y i f

they a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f h i s own j o b . Functional dependence, n o t

frequency o f i n t e r a c t i o n , i s the best p r e d i c t o r o f . a r o l e sender's knowledge about

the f o c a l j o b .

Organizational Norms and Role R e l a t i o n s . Organizational norms, as we have seen,

are n o t h e l d w i t h a b s o l u t e u n a n i m i t y ; r a t h e r , they a r e e x p e c t a t i o n s which a p p l y

 9-31

Table 9-13

Adequacy o f Role Sender's Conception o f t h e F o c a l Job

as a F u n c t i o n o f F u n c t i o n a l Dependence

F u n c t i o n a l Dependence Mean Adequacy N

High 42.7 (134)

Moderate 35.8 (107)

Low 34.8 (137)

P<?1
 9-32

b r o a d l y w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n and are more o r l e s s shared by i t s members. I f two

r o l e s e n d e r s a r e compared as t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y share a norm r e l e v a n t t o

the b e h a v i o r o f t h e same f o c a l person, d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s

can be a t t r i b u t e d t o two c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s : (a) Enduring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the

r o l e s e n d e r s themselves, such as p e r s o n a l i t y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , and ( b )

Role r e l a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each r o l e sender v i s - a - v i s t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n , .

Much o f t h e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms has tended t o take t h e former

approach, r e l a t i n g t h e advocacy o f c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n , f o r example, t o b l u e - c o l l a r /

w h i t e - c o l l a r d i f f e r e n c e s or t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n a u t h o r i t a r i a n personality trends. Data

i n t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r embodied t h i s approach, r e l a t i n g n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s t o

f o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r o l e senders.

Norms, however, a r e n e i t h e r formed n o r e x e r c i s e d i n t h e a b s t r a c t . They a r e alway

e x e r c i s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o some p a r t i c u l a r person i n a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n . We expect

them t o v a r y , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h t h e r o l e r e l a t i o n between norm-sender and t a r g e t , just

as sent p r e s s u r e and adequacy o f j o b c o n c e p t i o n have been shown t o v a r y w i t h these

relations.

The average p o s i t i o n o f r o l e senders w i t h i n each c l u s t e r on t h r e e dimensions o f

n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s — R u l e s O r i e n t a t i o n , Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n , and U n i v e r s a l i s m -

were shown i n Chapter 8 t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e degree o f s t r e s s experienced by t h e f o c a l

person. I n t h i s r e s p e c t n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s resemble sent p r e s s u r e and inadequacy

of j o b conception: a l l t h r e e types o f e x p e c t a t i o n s may prove s t r e s s f u l f o r t h e

target. A c c o r d i n g l y , a q u e s t i o n a l r e a d y asked w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o sent p r e s s u r e and

adequacy o f j o b c o n c e p t i o n may e q u a l l y w e l l be asked c o n c e r n i n g these t h r e e s e t s o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms. I s t h e degree t o which a member o f t h e r o l e s e t expects the-

f o c a l p e r s o n t o conform t o these norms a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l dependence,

p r o x i m i t y , r e l a t i v e s t a t u s and power?

Data a n s w e r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n summary form i n Table 14. A l l

e n t r i e s i n t h e c e l l s o f t h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .05 l e v e l or beyond.

*F Test o f o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n n o r m a t i v e s c o r e s , as a f u n c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t
levels o f the role relational variable.
 9-33

The c a p t i o n i n each c e l l i n d i c a t e s w h i c h l e v e l o f t h e r o l e r e l a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e had

the h i g h e s t s c o r e on t h e n o r m a t i v e v a r i a b l e i n q u e s t i o n .

I n s e r t Table 14 about here

. 7
ft _ '

^ From t h e f i r s t column o f t h i s t a b l e , we see t h a t r o l e senders who want t h e f o c a l

person t o be h i g h l y Rules O r i e n t e d tend to' be f u n c t i o n a l l y dependent on him, b u t o r -

ganizationally d i s t a n t from him. T h i s c o m b i n a t i o n , somewhat p a r a d o x i c a l i n l i g h t ' o f

the c o r r e l a t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l proximity and f u n c t i o n a l dependence, (r=,.30) y

I s r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i f we p u t o u r s e l v e s i n t h e shoes o f a r o l e sender who i s

dependent upon y e t d i s t a n t from t h e f o c a l p e r s o n . He needs t o be assured o f t h e

p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and r e g u l a r i t y o f t h e f o c a l person's b e h a v i o r . When t h e f o c a l person

suddenly a l t e r s h i s b e h a v i o r , members o f h i s r o l e s e t who are o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y close

t o him can observe t h e change d i r e c t l y and a d j u s t accordingly. Members who a r e d i s -

t a n t b u t i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e f o c a l person can t o l e r a t e b e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s

deviations. The d i s t a n t b u t dependent r o l e sender can n e i t h e r observe q u i c k l y n o r

r e a d i l y t o l e r a t e delayed o b s e r v a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , he advocates adherence t o t h e

letter of organizational law, thus a t t e m p t i n g t o make predictable an i m p o r t a n t part

o f h i s e n v i r o n m e n t - - t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e f o c a l person. An extreme example o f such a

s i t u a t i o n may be found i n a d i p l o m a t i c c o r p s . The c e n t r a l o f f i c e o f such a corps

must assure t h e adequate performance o f e m i s s a r i e s t o f o r e i g n n a t i o n s , since t h e

activities o f t h e c e n t r a l o f f i c e a r e h i g h l y dependent on t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f i t s

emissaries. But t h e c e n t r a l o f f i c e i s i n an u n f a v o r a b l e p o s i t i o n t o observe first-

hand t h e b e h a v i o r o f i t s s t a f f i n remote areas . The r e s u l t has been t h e emergence

o f a f o r m a l system o f demands w h i c h has become t h e symbol o f r i g i d compliance w i t h

organizational rules—diplomatic r e d tape. On a l e s s e r s c a l e , however, t h e same

process i s o b s e r v a b l e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e h e a d q u a r t e r s and f i e l d units

o f most l a r g e organizations. The h i s t o r y o f such o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f f e r s recurrent

examples o f t h e f i e l d champion who moves t o t h e headquarters u n i t f u l l o f t h e r e *

 9-34

Table 9-14

Three O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Norms as a F u n c t i o n o f t h e
Role R e l a t i o n s o f Focal'Person-and. Role Sender :

Rules Closeness o f Universalism

Orientation Supervision Norm i s
Norm i s Norm i s Associated
Associated w i t h : Associated w i t h : with:

High F u n c t i o n a l High F u n c t i o n a l High F u n c t i o n a l

Dependence o f Dependence o f Dependence o f
Role Sender Role Sender Role Sender

Organizational Organizational
Distance Distance

Superior Status Superior Status Superior Status

o f Role Sender o f Role Sender o f Role Sender

Moderate Power o f High Power o f

Role Sender over Role Sender over
F o c a l Person F o c a l Person
 9-35

f o r m e r ' s z e a l , and remains t o d i s a p p o i n t h i s former c o l l e a g u e s by a d a p t i n g t o t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i s new r o l e .

The p r e d i c t a b i l i t y concept i s a l s o u s e f u l i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e c u r v i l i n e a r association

between Rules O r i e n t a t i o n and t h e power o f t h e r o l e sender over t h e f o c a l person

( T a b l e 15) . The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between Rules O r i e n t a t i o n and power drops o f f

s h a r p l y among those r o l e senders who f e e l c o m p l e t e l y able t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o c a l per-

son. P e o p l e i n t h i s h i g h power group, l i k e o t h e r r o l e senders, r e q u i r e p r e d i c t a b l e

b e h a v i o r b y t h e f o c a l person. B u t , u n l i k e r o l e senders o f lower power, they do n o t

have t o r e l y on t h e f o c a l person's obedience t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r u l e s t o guarantee p r e -

dictability. The h i g h power r o l e sender has ample resources w i t h which t o move t h e

f o c a l person i n t o l i n e . The s i t u a t i o n o f t h e h i g h power r o l e sender w i t h r e s p e c t t o

Rules O r i e n t a t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o h i s s i t u a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o Sent P r e s s u r e , as t h e

p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y o f Tables 15 and 10 i n d i c a t e s . He does n o t send e x c e s s i v e p r e s -

s u r e because he knows t h a t t h e pressures he does send w i l l be e f f e c t i v e , and because

he has a l r e a d y o b t a i n e d s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s . He does n o t

emphasize Rules O r i e n t a t i o n because he f e e l s a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o c a l p e r s o n

regardless o f the r u l e s .

I n s e r t T a b l e 15 about here

The p e o p l e who l e a s t want t h e f o c a l p e r s o n t o be r u l e s o r i e n t e d , however, a r e

h i s immediate s u b o r d i n a t e s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r imposing emphasis on p a r -

t i c u l a r i s t i c r a t h e r than u n i v e r s a l i s t i c norm-sending t o t h e f o c a l person. They want

him t o w i t h h o l d from h i g h e r - u p s i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h p u t s co-workers i n a bad l i g h t , t o

t r y t o c o v e r up e r r o r s made by those under him, t o do f a v o r s f o r f r i e n d s c o n t r a r y t o

company r u l e s , t o g i v e s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o f r i e n d s i n making p r o m o t i o n a l recommenda-

t i o n s and t o defend h i s co-workers from c r i t i c i s m by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . I n s h o r t , im-

m e d i a t e s u b o r d i n a t e s want t h e f o c a l person t o r e g a r d them as' persons r a t h e r t h a n as

p o s i t i o n occupants and t o take p e r s o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t o account i n making decisions

 9-36

Table 9-15

R u l e s O r i e n t a t i o n E x p e c t a t i o n s as a F u n c t i o n o f R e l a t i v e Power

Mean Rules
Power Code Orientation N
High 5 49 (46)

4 61 (30)

3 57 (88)
2 57 (149)
Low • 1 55 (66)

p<<01
 9-37

w h i c h a f f e c t them. I n the same v e i n , immediate s u b o r d i n a t e s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e the

group l e a s t l i k e l y t o f a v o r Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n by t h e f o c a l person ( T a b l e

1
14);

the r o l e s e n d e r s most l i k e l y t o demand t h a t the f o c a l person e x e r c i s e t i g h t control

over those beneath him are h i s remote s u p e r i o r s . A comparison o f the two. s u b o r d i n a t e

groups ( D i r e c t S u b o r d i n a t e s ^ and Direct SubordinateS2) indicates t h a t i t i s the imme-

d i a t e s u b o r d i n a t e s who l e a s t want the f o c a l p e r s o n t o s u p e r v i s e c l o s e l y ; t h i s group

i s also the lowest on Rules O r i e n t a t i o n and Universalism (Figure 3). Those f u r t h e r

below the f o c a l person are l e s s extreme i n t h e i r demands 'regarding h i s supervisory

performance. They are a l s o l e s s d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by i n f l e x i b l e s u p e r v i s o r y b e h a v i o r

on h i s part.

I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here

The r o l e r e l a t i o n s of f o c a l person and r o l e sender p r o v i d e , t h e r e f o r e , a

m e a n i n g f u l b a s i s f o r the p r e d i c t i o n of n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . This approach com-

plements t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f n o r m a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s on the b a s i s o f c e r t a i n constant,

characteristics o f r o l e senders--company t e n u r e , j o b s t a t u s , w h i t e - c o l l a r vs. blue-

c o l l a r p o s i t i o n , and amount of s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Chapter 8 ) . These four

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t o g e t h e r w i t h the r e l a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s ( f u n c t i o n a l dependence,

proximity and r e l a t i v e s t a t u s ) , y i e l d a m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n o f .53 w i t h Rules

Orientation e x p e c t a t i o n s and ,45 w i t h U n i v e r s a l i s m . These e i g h t v a r i a b l e s i n combina-

tion predict even more e f f i c i e n t l y t o the Closeness o f S u p e r v i s i o n norm, the multiple

c o r r e l a t i o n i n t h i s case b e i n g .72. |

F o r m a l Role R e l a t i o n s as C o n d i t i o n e r s of the E f f e c t s of Role Conflict„ The

model o f r o l e c o n f l i c t developed i n Chapter 2 suggests t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations

are relevant at three p o i n t s i n a c o n f l i c t episode: 1) as sources o f the conflict-

i n d u c i n g p r e s s u r e s ; 2) as b e i n g a f f e c t e d by v a r y i n g degrees o f r o l e c o n f l i c t ; and

3) as c o n d i t i o n i n g the e f f e c t s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t on o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . The present

c h a p t e r has a l r e a d y made c o n s i d e r a b l e use o f f o r m a l r o l e r e l a t i o n s i n the f i r s t of

 9-38

Mean P o s i t i o n o f Role Senders*

Norm
Lowes t Highest

-Rules
Orientation
-Closeness o f
lor Supervision
•Universalism

C -Rules
Orientation
-Closeness o f
Supervision
Universalism

f -Rules ,
I Orientation
J -Closeness o f
( Supervision
I -Universalism

{
•Rules
Orientation
-Closeness o f
Supervision
•Universalism

F i g u r e 3. Mean P o s i t i o n s o f Role Senders on Three Normative Dimensions, as a F u n c t i o n

of Relative Status.

*For t h i s f i g u r e , scores on t h e t h r e e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms have been p l a c e d on a

.common s c a l e .
 9-39

these c o n t e x t s and Chapter 3. i n d i c a t e d the degree t o w h i c h a f f e c t i v e interpersonal

r e l a t i o n s o f the f o c a l person s u f f e r e d when he was exposed t o r o l e c o n f l i c t . The

remainder o f the p r e s e n t c h a p t e r w i l l c o n s i d e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s i n the third

of t h e s e c o n t e x t s , and w i l l show the ways i n w h i c h f o r m a l r o l e r e l a t i o n s m e d i a t e the

e f f e c t s of o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t on 'the f o c a l person.

The e f f e c t s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t are n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y mediated by organizational

proximity, and our scale of status ( p a r t nominal, p a r t o r d i n a l ) d i d not lend i t s e l f •

t o such a n a l y s i s . The conditioning e f f e c t s o f f u n c t i o n a l dependence and power, how-

ever, y i e l d a single general conclusion:

A p e r s o n under h i g h r o l e c o n f l i c t whose r o l e senders are h i g h l y dependent on

him and have h i g h power over him i s a beaten man.

In a r o l e set c h a r a c t e r i z e d by many members who depend h i g h l y on the performance

o f the f o c a l person and have at t h e i r command the resources w i t h w h i c h t o c o n t r o l his

b e h a v i o r , t h e p r e s s u r e s on him are l i k e l y t o be u n r e l e n t i n g , i n t e n s e , and c o n f l i c t -

evoking .

Such r o l e senders are u n r e l e n t i n g because they are s u f f i c i e n t l y dependent on

the f o c a l person's performance t h a t d i m i n i s h i n g the pressures would seem t o them t o

j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r own job e f f i c a c y . Only r o l e senders who are t o t a l l y dependent w i t h -

h o l d t h e i r p r e s s u r e s f o r f e a r of the consequences. I n g e n e r a l , the e x p e c t a t i o n s and

sent p r e s s u r e s of f u n c t i o n a l l y dependent r o l e senders are n o t e a s i l y abated; t h e i r

p e r s o n a l i n v e s t m e n t i n the performance o f the f o c a l r o l e i s too g r e a t f o r them t o

r e l a x t h e i r pressures.

T a b l e 16 shows d r a m a t i c a l l y the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f the r o l e c o n f l i c t e x p e r i e n c e

w h i c h o c c u r s when the power o f r o l e senders i s g r e a t . When r o l e senders have o n l y

low power o v e r the f o c a l ' p e r s o n , the f a c t t h a t they are i n o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t does

not i n c r e a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i s e x p e r i e n c e d c o n f l i c t (1.8 compared t o 1.4). When the

power o f r o l e senders i s h i g h , however, the e x p e r i e n c e d c o n f l i c t o f the f o c a l person.

*For t h i s purpose emphasis w i l l be s h i f t e d from'a dyadic t o a c l u s t e r l e v e l .

 9-40

i n c r e a s e s s h a r p l y i f t h e r e i s o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t i n the r o l e s e t . The presence o f a

p o w e r f u l s e t o f r o l e senders a l s o r e s t r i c t s t h e range o f c o p i n g b e h a v i o r s a v a i l a b l e

t o t h e f o c a l person. He cannot e a s i l y i g n o r e , d i s t o r t , o r m o d i f y t h e i r demands —

and g e t away w i t h i t . Coping means compliance. From m a t e r i a l s i n the second focal

i n t e r v i e w , we coded t h e success o f each p e r s o n i n h i s p a s t a t t e m p t s t o cope w i t h j o b

stresses. Coping success i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower ( p < ^ 0 5 ) when the average power o f

r o l e senders i s h i g h than when t h e f o c a l p e r s o n i s surrounded by r o l e senders o f

l e s s e r power.

I n s e r t Table 16 about here

E i t h e r t h e f u n c t i o n a l dependence o f r o l e senders on t h e f o c a l person or t h e i r

power over him i s s u f f i c i e n t t o i n t e n s i f y h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e c o n f l i c t s , and t o

make d i f f i c u l t h i s a t t e m p t s t o cope w i t h them.

When r o l e senders are b o t h dependent and p o w e r f u l , the s i t u a t i o n has about i t

i

the p a l l o f hopelessness. The e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s o f f o c a l persons t o such b i n d i n g

situations r e f l e c t t h i s hopelessness.

Role C o n f l i c t d r a s t i c a l l y reduces j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n where r o l e senders are e i t h e r

v e r y dependent on j o b performance o f t h e f o c a l person o r v e r y p o t e n t i n i n f l u e n c i n g

h i s b e h a v i o r (Tables 17 and 1 8 ) .

I n s e r t Tables 17 and 18.about here

C o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h r o l e c o n f l i c t , c o u p l e d w i t h h i g h f u n c t i o n a l dependence and

power, c l e a r l y g e n e r a t i n g f o r t h e f o c a l person a g e n e r a l disenchantment w i t h h i s j o b

i

situation. But what a f f e c t i v e f o r m does t h i s disenchantment take? Tension i s o n l y

a . p a r t i a l answer. The person s u b j e c t e d t o h i g h r o l e c o n f l i c t i s not a d d i t i o n a l l y

tense and b o t h e r e d i f h i s r o l e senders happen t o be dependent and p o w e r f u l . These

additional c o m p l i c a t i o n s render him l e s s b o t h e r e d t h a n b e a t e n . "Beaten" has

 9-41

Table 9-16

Mean I n t e n s i t y o f Experienced C o n f l i c t as a F u n c t i o n
o f O b j e c t i v e Role C o n f l i c t and the Average Power o f Role Senders

Role Senders Have H i g h Role Senders Have Lov

Power Over F o c a l Person Power Over Focal, Person

F o c a l Person i s under 5.1 1.8

High Role C o n f l i c t (N-ll) (N*=16)

F o c a l Person i s under 1.9 1-4

Low Role C o n f l i c t (N-15) (N=10)

<T05 n. s
 9-42

Table 9-17

Mean Job S a t i s f a c t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e C o n f l i c t
and t h e Average F u n c t i o n a l Dependence o f Role Senders

Role Senders H i g h l y Role Senders Not H i g h l y

Dependent on F o c a l Person Dependent on Focal Person

F o c a l Person i s Under H i g h 3.4 4.6

Role C o n f l i c t (N=9) (N=18)

F o c a l Person I s Under Low 5.1 5.2

Role C o n f l i c t (N=16) (N=10)

05 n. s

Table 9-18

Mean Job S a t i s f a c t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e C o n f l i c t
and t h e Average Power o f Role Senders

Role Senders Have H i g h Role Senders Have Low

Power Over F o c a l Person Power Over F o c a l Person

F o c a l Person i s Under High 2.9 5.2

Role C o n f l i c t (N=ll) (N»16)

F o c a l P e r s o n i s Under Low 5.3 4.9

Role C o n f l i c t (N=15) (N=10)

701 n. s ,
 9-43

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t t o o many c o n n o t a t i v e meanings t o make i t s c i e n t i f i c a l l y useful;

i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e , n e v e r t h e l e s s . T h i s b e a t e n f o c a l person g i v e s up hope o f a l t e r -

i n g t h e immutable and p o w e r f u l e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h c r e a t e h i s c o n f l i c t and f a l l s i n -

stead i n t o a s t a t e o f hopeless w i t h d r a w a l f r o m h i s co-workers.

Two b e h a v i o r s seem symptomatic o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n o f hopeless w i t h d r a w a l :

1. The tendency f o r Role C o n f l i c t t o weaken a f f e c t i v e bonds w i t h co-workers

i s g r e a t e s t where these co-workers e i t h e r depend h i g h l y on t h e f o c a l person o r have

h i g h power over him (Tables 19 and 2 0 ) .

I n s e r t Tables 19 and 20 about here

2. The a s s o c i a t i o n between Role C o n f l i c t and t h e degree o f f u t i l i t y e x p e r i e n c e d

on t h e j o b . ( a
v a r i a b l e coded from f o c a l I n t e r v i e w m a t e r i a l s ) i s g r e a t e s t where r o l e

senders e i t h e r depend h i g h l y on t h e j o b performance o f t h e f o c a l person or have t h e

g r e a t e s t a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l h i s b e h a v i o r ( T a b l e s 21 and 2 2 ) .

I n s e r t Tables 21 and 22 about here

 9-44

Table 9-19

Mean I n f o r m a l I n t e r p e r s o n a l Bonds as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e
C o n f l i c t and t h e Average F u n c t i o n a l Dependence o f Role Senders

Role Senders Are H i g h l y Role Senders Are Not H i g h l y

Dependent on F o c a l Persons Dependent on F o c a l Persons

F o c a l Person i s Under 24 28
High Role C o n f l i c t (N=9) (N=18)

F o c a l Person i s Under 38 32
Low Role C o n f l i c t (N=16) (N=10)

<T05 n. s

Table 9-20

Mean I n f o r m a l I n t e r p e r s o n a l Bonds as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e
C o n f l i c t and t h e Average Power o f Role Senders

Role Senders"Have High Role Senders Have Low

Power Over F o c a l Person Power Over F o c a l Person

F o c a l P e r s o n i s Under 26 28
H i g h Role C o n f l i c t (N=ll) (N=16)

F o c a l Person >is Under- 38 32

Low Role C o n f l i c t (N=15) (N=10)

<^05 n. s
 9-45

Table 9-21

Mean F e e l i n g s o f Job F u t i l i t y as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e Role

C o n f l i c t and t h e Average F u n c t i o n a l Dependence o f Role Senders

Role Senders Are H i g h l y Role Senders Are Not H i g h l y

Dependent on F o c a l Person Dependent on F o c a l Person

F o c a l P e r s o n i s Under 6.4 3.9

H i g h Role C o n f l i c t (N=9) (N=18)

F.ocal Person i s Under 3.8 4.2

Low Role C o n f l i c t (N=16) (N=10)

05 n.s

Table 9-22

Mean F e e l i n g s o f Job F u t i l i t y as a F u n c t i o n o f O b j e c t i v e Role

C o n f l i c t and t h e Average Power o f Role Senders

Role Senders Have High Role Senders Have Low

Power Over F o c a l Person Power Over F o c a l Person

F o c a l P e r s o n i s Under 6.4 3.7

H i g h Role C o n f l i c t (N=ll) (N«16)

F o c a l P e r s o n i s Under 4.4 3.4

Low Role C o n f l i c t (N=15) (N=10)

105 n.s.
 CHAPTER 10

PERSONALITY AND ADJUSTMENT TO CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY

The m a j o r theme o f t h i s I n v e s t i g a t i o n t h u s f a r has been, i n b r i e f , that

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r e s s e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y r o l e c o n f l i c t s and a m b i g u i t y — l e a d t o i n t e r n a l

p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e s o f c o n f l i c t and t e n s i o n w h i c h i n t u r n l e a d t o responses w h i c h

may be c o s t l y f o r b o t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . B u t , o f course, n o t

a l l people a r e e q u a l l y s e n s i t i v e t o s t r e s s , n o r do we a l l respond t o t e n s i o n i n

the same way.

I n t h e b e g i n n i n g o f Chapter I I I we b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d t h e cases o f Foreman

and H a n d l e r , two men who e x p e r i e n c e p r e s s u r e s o f c o n f l i c t i n g role expectations i n

markedly d i s s i m i l a r ways. A r e v i e w o f these cases w i l l i n d i c a t e t h a t we

cannot a t t r i b u t e these d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s o f r e a c t i o n s o l e l y t o o b j e c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s

i n t h e two men's j o b s o r i n t h e s p e c i f i c form o f t h e i r r o l e c o n f l i c t , b u t must a l s o

take i n t o a c c o u n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f t h e two men.

For example, we have noted above t h a t Foreman and Handler have d i f f e r e n t

k i n d s o f m o t i v a t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t s I n t h e r e s p e c t i v e dilemmas. Foreman l o c a t e s

the source o f c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s s u r e s as o u t s i d e h i m s e l f ; some o f h i s a s s o c i a t e s

encourage h i m t o meet p r o d u c t i o n standards w h i l e o t h e r s r e s i s t h i s e f f o r t s t o do

so.. I n t h e case o f Handler, however, we see t h a t even though t h e r e i s a

d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e u n i v e r s a l l y accepted c o s t - r e d u c i n g g o a l s o f h i s department

and h i s c o n s i s t e n t l y r e j e c t e d a t t e m p t s t o r e a l i z e these g o a l s , he l o c a l i z e s t h e

m a j o r s o u r c e o f h i s c o n f l i c t n o t I n t h e I n c o n s i s t e n t r o l e sendings o f h i s

a s s o c i a t e s , b u t I n the f a c t t h a t h i s s t r o n g l y I n t e r n a l i z e d o c c u p a t i o n a l standards

demand a g r e a t e r r e a l i z a t i o n o f performance g o a l s than most o f h i s senders w i l l

tolerate. I f Handler were a b l e t o abandon o r r e l a x these s t a n d a r d s , t h e I n t e n s i t y

of h i s f e e l i n g s o f anger and f r u s t r a t i o n would be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s e n e d .

I f we were a b l e t o p u t Foreman I n t o H a n d l e r ' s c o n f l i c t u a l shoes, we c o u l d

 10-2

s p e c u l a t e t h a t he would be l e s s a f f e c t e d by t h e i n t e r n a l i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f r o l e

sendings t h a n i s Handler, s i n c e Foreman's performance s t a n d a r d s seem p r i m a r i l y

dependent o n e x t e r n a l l y imposed r e q u i r e m e n t s , and s i n c e the r o l e senders are n o t

l i k e l y t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e on him t o perform t a s k s which they themselves frustrate.

On t h e o t h e r hand, i f we were t o s p e c u l a t e on Handler's r e a c t i o n t o the

c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s s u r e s under w h i c h Foreman l a b o r s as a p r o d u c t i o n s u p e r v i s o r , we

would n o t be s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d him e x p e r i e n c i n g as i n t e n s e s t r a i n s as does.

Foreman, b u t f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons. For t h e p r o d u c t i o n foreman i n t h i s parti-

c u l a r p l a n t , t h e c o n s t a n t p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e i n g demoted d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f heavy

l a y - o f f means t h a t he h e s i t a t e s t o a n t a g o n i z e the Union and t h e l i n e workers f o r

f e a r t h a t t h e y m i g h t b l o c k h i s chances f o r r e g a i n i n g h i s p o s i t i o n a f t e r a

demotion. I n e f f e c t , he i s d e p r i v e d o f t h e prime source o f s e c u r i t y upon w h i c h

foremen i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s can r e l y I n a t t e m p t s t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t : . the

knowledge t h a t he c o u l d always, i f need be, s i d e w i t h and be p r o t e c t e d by

management i n d i s p u t e s w i t h the Union. Foreman's p e r s o n a l predicament i s

h e i g h t e n e d because o f h i s f e e l i n g c o n s t a n t l y provoked t o anger which he cannot

e x p r e s s , n o t o n l y f o r f e a r o f r e p r i s a l , b u t because o f the ( i n f e r r e d ) guilt

aroused i n h i m by h i s own h o s t i l i t y . His i n a b i l i t y t o r e g a r d h i s anger as

justified i n d i g n a t i o n , due t o h i s own l a c k o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , a l s o c o n t r i b u t e s t o

his suppression of h o s t i l i t y . We would h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t Handler would r e a c t more

s t r o n g l y t o t h e same s i t u a t i o n because h i s i n t e r n a l i z e d standards would f u n c t i o n t o

m a i n t a i n h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h management. He would c o n t i n u e t o press the men

t o produce t o s t a n d a r d i n s p i t e o f the p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o s i n g h i s s t a t u s as a

consequence o f a n t a g o n i z i n g t h e Union.

F u n c t i o n s o f P e r s o n a l i t y i n R e a c t i o n s t o Role C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y .

These c o n j e c t u r e d r o l e s w i t c h e s suggest t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f i m p o r t a n t r e l a t i o n -

s h i p s b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s , , o n the one hand,

 10-3

and the e x p e r i e n c e o f and r e a c t i o n t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y / on the o t h e r .

This assumption i s , o f course, i n h e r e n t i n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model presented i n

Chapter 2. I t should be u s e f u l a t t h i s p o i n t t o s k e t c h o u t these r e l a t i o n s h i p s

more c o m p l e t e l y i n o r d e r t o b e t t e r understand the ^analysis i n t h e c h a p t e r s which

follow. R e l e v a n t p a r t s o f t h e model a r e reproduced i n F i g u r e 10-1

I n s e r t F i g u r e 10-1 about here

As t h e model suggests, a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the

f o c a l p e r s o n i s i m p o r t a n t f o r s e v e r a l reasons. 1) They a f f e c t the e x p e c t a t i o n s

r o l e senders h o l d toward the f o c a l person and thus the k i n d s o f pressures they

e x e r t on h i m . That I s , some people may e l i c i t from t h e i r a s s o c i a t e s s t r o n g and

c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e p r e s s u r e s and t h e i r r e a c t i o n s t o p r e s s u r e s may serve t o i n t e n s i f y

them. O t h e r s p e r f o r m t h e i r r o l e s i n ways w h i c h seldom evoke p r e s s u r e s o f problem-

a t i c magnitude. S i m i l a r l y , some people encourage and o t h e r s d i s c o u r a g e f r e e and

open communication w i t h t h e i r r o l e senders. One q u e s t i o n then i s * . What

5

personality f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o the c r e a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t o r a m b i g u i t y ,

and how does t h i s s t r e s s - p r o v o k i n g process operate? Such processes are r e p r e s e n t e d

by Arrow 4 i n t h e diagram.

2) P e r s o n v a r i a b l e s c o n d i t i o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sent r o l e pressures

and the p e r s o n ' s e x p e r i e n c e o f them, p r o d u c i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s

to stress (Arrow 5). Some people are a b l e t o t o l e r a t e s e v e r e l y s t r e s s f u l

c o n d i t i o n s w i t h o u t v i s i b l e s i g n s o f d i s c o m f o r t and w i t h l i t t l e d i s r u p t i o n o f

normal p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g . I n c o n t r a s t , o t h e r s are overwhelmed w i t h t e n s i o n and

a n x i e t y when faced w i t h r e l a t i v e l y moderate l e v e l s o f s t r e s s . I t may be i m p o r t a n t ,

t h e r e f o r e , t o i d e n t i f y i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y to environmental

p r e s s u r e s and events.

3) P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s a l s o lead t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n techniques
 IX. III. , IV.
O's Role Role Pres- P's Exper- P's Re-
Expec--" sures t o - ience: sponse:
tatIons: ward P: tension, withdrawal,
for P degree o f etc. etc.
conflict

F i g u r e 10-1. P a r t i a l Model o f F a c t o r s I n v o l v e d i n Role C o n f l i c t :

(Reproduced i n p a r t from F i g u r e 2 r 2 , Chapter 2 ) .
 10-5

used t o cope w i t h s t r e s s ( a l s o r e p r e s e n t e d by A r r o w 5 ) . I n the face o f tension

(Producing s i t u a t i o n s , some people tend t o be problem o r i e n t e d — t o d e a l w i t h

those a s p e c t s o f the environment which c r e a t e the s t r e s s . Others are more

t e n s i o n o r i e n t e d and a t t e m p t t o cope w i t h the- e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f rather

than w i t h t h e determinants o f t h a t experience. To the e x t e n t t h a t the s t r e s s i s

produced by the b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r persons, as i s the case w i t h r o l e c o n f l i c t s ,

e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h the s t r e s s are a p t t o have i n t e r p e r s o n a l consequences. As

was shown i n Chapter 3, t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d the s t r e n g t h

o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds d e t e r i o r a t e i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . But these consequence

are more pronounced f o r some i n d i v i d u a l s t h a n f o r o t h e r s .

4) The n a t u r e o f ones experience i n a r o l e and o f the b e h a v i o r s which a r e

e l i c i t e d and r e i n f o r c e d t h e r e i n may also lead t o changes i n p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s .

However, i t i s our assumption t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l i t y changes take p l a c e

( i n the absence o f e x t r e m e l y t r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e s ) o n l y over r e l a t i v e l y long

periods of time. Evidence f o r processes r e p r e s e n t e d by Arrow 8 i n F i g u r e 10-1

i s modest and s c a t t e r e d and u s u a l l y w i l l not be treated i n d e t a i l . But l e t us :

c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r t h r e e processes more c o m p l e t e l y .

P e r s o n a l i t y as s t i m u l u s f o r r o l e pressures. D i f f e r e n t people a r e , o f course

perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by o t h e r s . As such,- they d i f f e r i n the ways t h a t t h e i r

b e h a v i o r i n f l u e n c e s , the e x p e c t a t i o n s and r e a c t i o n s o f t h e i r r o i e senders: Some

people c o n s t a n t l y seem'to provoke o t h e r s t o h o s t i l i t y and a g g r e s s i o n , w h i l e

o t h e r s e l i c i t sympathy and s u p p o r t i v e responses from t h e i r a s s o c i a t e s . Take the

case o f A c h i e v e r , an e x t r e m e l y a m b i t i o u s , e n e r g e t i c , m o b i l i t y - o r i e n t e d person.

A l a z y b u t a l e r t s u p e r i o r may evade some o f h i s own responsibilities by

delegating them t o A c h i e v e r , who would p r o b a b l y a c c e p t them w i t h a l a c r i t y . But

another s u p e r i o r might f e e l t h a t h i s status i s threatened by the presence o f

t h i s "young man on the make/ 1

and might b l o c k h i s e f f o r t s a t achievement. In his
 10-6

f r e n z y t o g e t ahead, A c h i e v e r tends t o s t e p on the toes ( i f not on the shoulders)

o f h i s c o l l e a g u e s and subordinates. To the e x t e n t t h a t they a r e o f f e n d e d by t h i s

b e h a v i o r , t h e y are l i k e l y t o e x e r t c o u n t e r - p r e s s u r e s t o keep him i n bounds.

A n o t h e r more r e l a x e d and c o n s i d e r a t e person m i g h t be l i k e d and accepted by t h e

same s e t o f r o l e senders and m i g h t t h e r e f o r e r e c e i v e from them few pressures

toward change. The s t r e n g t h o f the person's m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s t h u s , may

determine i n d i r e c t l y the degree o f c o n f l i c t i n the r o l e p r e s s u r e s he c o n f r o n t s . .

The n a t u r e o f the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h a r e d e l e g a t e d t o a person a l s o

depends, i n p a r t , on h i s . r e a c t i o n s t o c e r t a i n k i n d s o f r o l e r e q u i r e m e n t s . If he

were a h i g h l y f l e x i b l e person, and g e n e r a l l y t o l e r a n t o f a m b i g u i t y , h i s boss (and

o t h e r s i n h i s r o l e c l u s t e r ) might shunt onto h i m almost any k i n d o f t a s k ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y a vaguely d e f i n e d t a s k t h a t he, t h e sender, f e l t t o be irritating

and p e r i p h e r a l t o h i s c e n t r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I f j on t h e o t h e r hand, he was

somewhat r i g i d , he m i g h t . b e g i v e n o n l y those t a s k s which h i s senders f e l t were

too r o u t i n e and c i r c u m s c r i b e d t o m e r i t t h e i r own interest. T h i s process o f m u t u a l -

s e l e c t i o n i n the assignment and acceptance o f r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t

i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s may f u n c t i o n t o I n h i b i t c e r t a i n k i n d s o f r o l e sendings as

w e l l as t o e l i c i t them.

I n sum,, i f we a r e t o understand the dynamics o f c o n f l i c t and ambiguity

e p i s o d e s , we must be concerned w i t h the c o n t r i b u t i o n s the f o c a l person H i m s e l f

makes t o w a r d c r e a t i n g these e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s .

D i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l events. The concept o f stress-?

t o l e r a n c e has analogous meanings f o r p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s ( m e t a l s u p e r s t r u c t u r e s and

the l i k e ) and f o r persons. I n e i t h e r case i t r e f e r s t o the a b i l i t y o f the

r e f e r e n t t o w i t h s t a n d f o r c e o r pressure w i t h o u t breakdown o r m a l f u n c t i o n , t h a t i s ,

to t h e maximum degree o f s t r e s s t h a t can be e x e r t e d on i t b e f o r e i t shows s i g n s

of serious s t r a i n . As i n the case o f p h y s i c a t i b o d i e s , some persons a r e b e t t e r

 10-7

e q u i p p e d ' t o handle s t r e s s t h a n o t h e r s * But t h i s concept w a r r a n t s c l o s e r

inspection.

There a r e s e v e r a l models o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e which m i g h t be considered. The

f i r s t , and t h e s i m p l e s t , m i g h t be c a l l e d a l i n e a r model (see F i g u r e 10-2a.). This

model would h o l d t h a t the magnitude o f s t r a i n (e.g., t e n s i o n , a n x i e t y ) i s a

d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f the degree o f s t r e s s t o w h i c h the person i s s u b j e c t e d ; from

zero upward i n d e f i n i t e l y , the g r e a t e r the s t r e s s , the g r e a t e r the m a n i f e s t a t i o n

of s t r a i n . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s would be r e f l e c t e d i n the l i n e a r model by

d i f f e r e n t g r a d i e n t s i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , w i t h a steep g r a d i e n t showing l e s s

s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e than a g e n t l y s l o p i n g g r a d i e n t . Person A i n 'Figure 10-2a_

o b v i o u s l y i s more s e n s i t i v e t o s t r e s s t h a n i s person B. ,

I n s e r t F i g u r e 10-2 about here

co ma.ooaaaoao.ciODSioaBava.m'aaBa

The l i n e a r model can be further refined i f individual differences i n level

o f s t r a i n a t the o r i g i n a r e r e c o g n i z e d ( F i g u r e 10-2b). I n t h i s case, degree o f

stress-tolerance Is less e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d . Persons D and F a r e o b v i o u s l y more

s e n s i t i v e t o m i l d degrees o f s t r e s s t h a n a r e C and E. But F i s the most and C the

l e a s t w e l l equipped t o handle h i g h degrees o f s t r e s s . , Person F i s r e l a t i v e l y

u n a f f e c t e d by v a r i a t i o n s i n s t r e s s , but nonetheless e x p e r i e n c e s some s t r a i n .

To be more concrete on these m a t t e r s , some i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l r e a c t similarly

regardless o f whether they are.under h i g h o r low c o n f l i c t ; f o r o t h e r s , a s i t u a t i o n

o f h i g h c o n f l i c t w i l l e l i c i t v e r y d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s t h a n one o f low conflict.

A l t h o u g h we would g e n e r a l l y e x p e c t n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o be g r e a t e s t when the

degree o f - o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t i s h i g h e s t , we would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y expect I n a l l

persons a s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between degree o f o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t and the

experience o f inner c o n f l i c t . For example, a person who i s g r e a t l y concerned w i t h

the maintenance o f h i s autonomy and who i s generally r e s i s t a n t to a u t h o r i t y might

 10-8

High Person A

Magnitude
of
strain

Person B

Low
Low High
Degree o f S t r e s s
a. The S i m p l e s t L i n e a r Model

High Person C

Person D
Magnitude
of
strain
Person E

Person F

Low
Low High
Degree o f S t r e s s
b. The D i f f e r e n t i a l L i n e a r Model

High
Person- G

Magnitude Person H
of
strain
Person I

Low
Low High
Degree o f S t r e s s
c. The T h r e s h o l d Model

F i g u r e 10-2. A l t e r n a t i v e Models o f S t r e s s ^ X o l e r a n c e
 10-9

c o n s i s t e n t l y r e a c t t o h i s boss°s m i l d e s t s u g g e s t i o n and f e i n t e d h i n t s as though

t h e y were r e p r e s s i v e u l t i m a t u m s . He m i g h t t h e r e f o r e p e r c e i v e h i m s e l f t o be i n

h i g h l y c o n f l l c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f a c t t h a t h i s senders were n o t

e x e r t i n g p r e s s u r e on him t o m o d i f y h i s b e h a v i o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y .

On t h e o t h e r hand, A c h i e v e r ( c i t e d e a r l i e r i n the c h a p t e r ) p o r t r a y s h i m s e l f .

as i m p e r v i o u s t o t h e pressures and c o n f l i c t s t h a t many o t h e r s would r e g a r d as

highly stressful. A l t h o u g h on the b a s i s o f o b j e c t i v e scores we i n f e r t h a t h i s

senders a r e e x e r t i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e on him t o m o d i f y h i s b e h a v i o r , ( t h u s

p l a c i n g him i n a p o s i t i o n of c o n f l i c t ) 9 he seems t o e x p e r i e n c e these p r e s s u r e s i n

a v e r y muted f a s h i o n and t o be somewhat i n s e n s i t i v e t o t h e i r critical implications.

He does n o t , hoWever, deny t h a t he i s under p r e s s u r e . From h i s b e g i n n i n g s i n a

l o w s t a t u s p r o d u c t i o n j o b i n the company, t h i s young e x e c u t i v e has striven

i n t e n s e l y , spending almost.as many'hours I n o v e r t i m e as he does d u r i n g r e g u l a r

w o r k i n g p e r i o d s , s e e k i n g a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , g r e a t e r

p r e s s u r e s whenever t h e o p p o r t u n i t y a r i s e s .

A c h i e v e r " s case i s more c o m p l i c a t e d t h a n t h a t o f o u r h y p o t h e t i c a l person w i t h

s t r o n g autonomy needs, (whom we now s h a l l r e f e r t o as L o n e r ) . Even though L o n e r ' s

r e a c t i o n m i g h t be somewhat more severe under h i g h sent c o n f l i c t t h a n under low,

l i k e D i n F i g u r e 10°2b^ they would be q u a l i t a t i v e l y . s i m i l a r — I . e . 9 highly strained

under b o t h c o n d i t i o n s . A c h i e v e r can t o l e r a t e a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n f l i c t and

u n d o u b t e d l y does n o t e x p e r i e n c e the f u l l e x t e n t o f t h e p r e s s u r e s which a r e s e n t t o

him. Far f r o m b e i n g harassed under p r e s s u r e o r c o n n e c t i n g pressure w i t h l o s s o f

autonomy, he seemed t o t h r i v e on i t , a l m o s t as though he j u d g e d h i s progress and

p r e s t i g e i n terms o f t h e frequency o f sendings he e l i c i t e d from a s s o c i a t e s . Because

o f t h i s , we m i g h t i n f e r t h a t he would be more a p t t o r e a c t . n e g a t i v e l y i n s i t u a t i o n s

c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l o w t h a n by h i g h c o n f l i c t . For him, l a c k o f c o n f l i c t would mean

" n o t h i n g i s happening==you°re n o t moving ahead," r a t h e r t h a n meaning t h a t a l l was

 10-10

w e l l and under c o n t r o l .

Figure 10-2a_ r e p r e s e n t s a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t model i n which the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f

s t r a i n i s governed by a t h r e s h o l d phenomenon. There are i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n

the degree o f s t r e s s r e q u i r e d t o t r i g g e r a s t r a i n response, b u t the magnitude of.

s t r a i n , when I t i s produced, i s determined by f a c t o r s o t h e r than the s t r e s s . One

m i g h t a l s o e x p e c t v a r i a t i o n s among people i n t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f the strain.

Two common assumptions are p r e d i c a t e d on something l i k e a t h r e s h o l d model:

(1) t h a t e v e r y man has h i s b r e a k i n g - p o i n t , and. (2) t h a t t h e seeds o f emotional

d i s o r d e r a r e i n the person ( t y p i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d as p r e d i s p o s i n g factors) while

the e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r e s s c o n s t i t u t e s o n l y a p r e c i p i t a t i n g e v e n t . I n t h i s model

as I n the second, d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e I s d i f f i c u l t . I f It Is

d e t e r m i n e d by the t h r e s h o l d p o i n t , person I has the l o w e s t and H the highest

tolerance. But I i s most a b l e t o s u r v i v e severe s t r e s s , and H handles m i l d

s t r e s s l e s s w e l l t h a n the o t h e r s .

l The a v a i l a b l e evidence on p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t r e s s (and t h e r e i s l i t t l e enough o f

i t ) g i v e s some s u p p o r t f o r b o t h the l i n e a r and t h r e s h o l d models and does n o t

p r o v i d e an adequate b a s i s f o r c h o o s i n g between them. There i s ample evidence t h a t

people e x p r e s s more v i o l e n t e m o t i o n a l upheavals and r e s o r t t o more d r a s t i c defensive

maneuvers u n d e r v e r y h i g h s t r e s s t h a n under more moderate l e v e l s . Our emotional

e x p r e s s i o n s u s u a l l y r e f l e c t f a i r l y w e l l the s t r e s s c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h produce them.

But the a s s o c i a t i o n between s t r e s s and s t r a i n , when i t becomes f u l l y known, a l m o s t

c e r t a i n l y w i l l n o t t u r n o u t t o be s t r i c t l y l i n e a r and i t may n o t even be

monotonic ( u n l e s s one o f them i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f the o t h e r s ) .

On t h e o t h e r hand, o b s e r v a t i o n s o f people under s t r e s s r e v e a l s something o f the

threshold e f f e c t . The " s t r a w t h a t broke the camel°s back" s i m i l e f i t s the n o t i o n

t h a t one can "stand" so much s t r e s s b u t no more. We speak o f the t e n s i o n b u i l d i n g

up, b u t i t o f t e n f i r s t becomes e v i d e n t i n a d r a m a t i c o u t b u r s t , s u g g e s t i n g that

 10-11
I
the response was p o t e n t i a l l y t h e r e a l l a l o n g l y i n g below the s u r f a c e . Common
s

r e f e r e n c e s t o "pent-up emotions" and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f persons such as "she's

always n e r v o u s " or "he has a l o t o f h o s t i l i t y " r e f l e c t the n o t i o n t h a t magnitude
o f s t r a i n , when p r e s e n t , i s a t l e a s t i n p a r t determined by i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s r a t h e r
t h a n by c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e environment.

A p o s s i b l e rapprochement between the l i n e a r and t h r e s h o l d models w i l l be

c o n s i d e r e d below, b u t f i r s t , some a d d i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d f o r a

r e a l i s t i c theory of individual differences i n stress=strsin relations.

I n e a c h o f the models d i s c u s s e d above, b o t h s t r e s s and s t r a i n a r e t r e a t e d as

u n i t a r y dimensions. T h i s i s f a r from t h e case. There a r e , o f course, many

q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t sources o f e n v i r o i m e n t a l s t r e s s . Several k i n d s of

c o n f l i c t and s e v e r a l c o n d i t i o n s o f a m b i g u i t y have been I d e n t i f i e d as s t r e s s f u l i n

e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s , and no doubt t h e r e are i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o

each o f them.

Perhaps i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t o l e r a n c e f o r c o n f l i c t , i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y i n

s e n s i t i v i t y to ambiguity. For example, a v e r y dependent worker may be a b l e t o

f u n c t i o n w e l l on the j o b o n l y i f t a s k s are o u t l i n e d i n g r e a t d e t a i l , with

d e a d l i n e s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d , , and w i t h v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e problem-solving

channels p r e c i s e l y p o i n t e d o u t . However, w h i l e i t may be m e a n i n g f u l t o t a l k about

a g e n e r a l t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y o r need f o r s t r u c t u r e (see F r e r i k e l - B r u n s w i c k , 19

o r Cohen, e_£ a l . . 1955^ one should n o t expect any g i v e n person t o r e a c t s i m i l a r l y

t o a l l f o r m s o f a m b i g u i t y , j u s t as he should n o t be expected to react similarly

to a l l types of role c o n f l i c t . The h i g h l y dependent worker, for.example, may be

c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a p e r v a s i v e i n t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y , not o n l y needing structural

c l a r i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t a s k r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t a l s o needing c o n s t a n t feed-back from

h i s a s s o c i a t e s as t o t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s performance and t h e i r personal regard

f o r him. Or p he may be r e l a t i v e l y unbothered by g r e a t a m b i g u i t i e s about h i s s t a t u s

 10-12

I n t h e company and h i s p o t e n t i a l f o r advancement p r o v i d i n g he can m a i n t a i n f a i t h .

t h a t h i s b o s s and t h e company l i k e h i m and w i l l l o o k o u t f o r h i m i f he p e r f o r m s

adequately. T h i s l a t t e r i n s t a n c e should n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t t h e

p e r s o n i s i n s e n s i t i v e t o a m b i g u i t y , b u t t h a t t h e achievement o f c l a r i t y i n a n

area o f s a l i e n t concern,, m a i n l y h i s s u p e r i o r s ' regard f o r him, may f u n c t i o n t o

d i m i n i s h h i s r e a c t i o n s t o b t h e r areas o f u n c e r t a i n t y .

Rather than a general conception o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e , an adequate t h e o r e t i c a l

t r e a t m e n t r e q u i r e s r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t f o r each person t h e r e i s a somewhat

i d i o s y n c r a t i c s e t o f s t r e s s o r s t o w h i c h he i s s e n s i t i v e . One man's s t r e s s i s

a n o t h e r man°s source o f s a t i s f a c t i o n . Thus, on t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l c h a r t s i n

F i g u r e 10-2, each person would be r e p r e s e n t e d more a p p r o p r i a t e l y by a f a m i l y o f

c u r v e s , each o f w h i c h i s based on a d i f f e r e n t source o f s t r e s s . Motivational

f a c t o r s a r e l i k e l y t o be i m p o r t a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g what e n v i r o n m e n t a l conditions

a r e s a l i e n t f o r t h e person and thus what s t r e s s o r s he m i g h t be s e n s i t i v e t o .

J u s t a s I n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h produce s t r a i n f o r them,

t h e r e a r e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e and e x p r e s s i o n of strain.

Propensities f o r experiencing such emotions as a n x i e t y , anger, g u i l t , self-

h a t r e d , f u t i l i t y , and a p a t h y , as w e l l as e l a t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n , d i f f e r from

person t o person. Under s t r e s s , some people c r y , o t h e r s b i t e t h e i r l i p s , and

s t i l l others lash out i n verbal or physical attacks. Moreover, t h e p a r t i c u l a r

r e a c t i o n f o r a g i v e n person v a r i e s from one s t r e s s - c o n d i t i o n t o another. I n more

extreme cases, some people develop u l c e r s o r h e a r t a t t a c k s w h i l e o t h e r s a r e more

prone t o p s y c h o t i c b r e a k d o w n . M a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f s t r a i n may be as h i g h l y

i n d i v i d u a l mnd p e r s o n a l as a r e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s which b r i n g them

about.

I n summary, t h e r e a r e ample i f n o t overwhelming reasons f o r c o n s i d e r i n g

i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o s t r e s s f u l c o n d i t i o n s i n the environment.
 10-13

However, a simple n o t i o n o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e i s n o t l i k e l y t o c a r r y us v e r y f a r .
V a r i a t i o n s a r e many and complex, and many a s p e c t s o r dimensions o f p e r s o n a l i t y a r e
a p t t o be i n v o l v e d .

I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n . coping b e h a v i o r . We promised e a r l i e r t o r e t u r n t o

the q u e s t i o n o f rapprochement between t h e l i n e a r and t h r e s h o l d models o f

s e n s i t i v i t y t o stress. The merging o f the two models, o r more a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h r e s h o l d n o t i o n s i n t o t h e l i n e a r model, m i g h t be based on two

considerations. F i r s t , as i s t h e case w i t h a l l sensory processes, t h e r e a r e , no

d o u b t , l e v e l s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r e s s which a r e s u b l i m i n a l and t h e r e f o r e do n o t

a f f e c t t h e person.* Thus, t h e l i n e a r s t r e s s - s t r a i n r e l a t i o n b e g i n s n o t from zero

s t r e s s b u t from some l e v e l above z e r o , a l o w e r t h r e s h o l d . Second, h i g h e r level

t h r e s h o l d s may be c r e a t e d by t h e o p e r a t i o n and f a i l u r e o f coping mechanisms.

Reference t o F i g u r e 10-3 may h e l p make t h i s c l e a r .

I n s e r t Figure 10-3 about'here

o o a*w> a n i i i ctf CQ o <
•> o O m> S J I B <m u a a D CB *n a o *> o A «D •

I n Figure 10-3 (a h y p o t h e t i c a l c a s e ) , p o i n t a on t h e s t r e s s dimension

represents t h e l o w e r t h r e s h o l d ; signs o f s t r a i n a r e n o t e v i d e n t below t h a t p o i n t .

From p o i n t a t o b, i n c r e a s i n g amounts o f s t r e s s c r e a t e h i g h e r magnitudes o f

s t r a i n ( e . g . , a n x i e t y ) , b u t a t p o i n t b t h e p e r s o n copes w i t h t h e s t r e s s relatively

e f f e c t i v e l y by t h e use o f some defense mechanism ( e . g . , d e n i a l ) . For s t r e s s as

I n t e n s e as p o i n t c_, t h e defense f a i l s o r proves inadequate and what appears t o be

a second t h r e s h o l d o c c u r s ; t h e person i s suddenly overwhelmed w i t h a n x i e t y . At

p o i n t d a new c o p i n g procedure ( e . g . , l e a v i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n ) i s i n t r o d u c e d once

again reducing the s t r a i n . The d o t t e d l i n e " i n F i g u r e 10-3 r e p r e s e n t s t h e

1
A c c o r d i n g t o some d e f i n i t i o n s t h i s would be I m p o s s i b l e ; a s t i m u l u s c o n d i t i o n o r
e v e n t wouldn°t c o n s t i t u t e s t r e s s u n l e s s and u n t i l i t produces d e t e c t a b l e e f f e c t s ,
i . e . , s t r a i n . B u t by t h i s c o n c e p t i o n s t r e s s - s t r a i n r e l a t i o n s have no m e a n i n g — d e g r e e
o f s t r e s s i s measured by magnitude o f s t r a i n . A more f r u i t f u l t h e o r e t i c a l approach,
i t seems t o us, would I n v o l v e independent c o n c e p t u a l and o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f
s t r e s s and s t r a i n . The d e s i g n o f t h e i n t e n s i v e study i s based on t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n .
 10-14

High

Magnitude

strain

Low
Low a d. High

F i g u r e 10-3* D e f e n s e ^ F a l l u r e Model o f S t r e s s - T o l e r a n c e
 10-15

h y p o t h e t i c a l l e v e l o f s t r a i n w h i c h would be produced i f c o p i n g procedures were

n o t used, and something c l o s e £o l i n e a r i t y m i g h t be assumed. According to t h i s

more complex m o d e l 5 sharp d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f s t r a i n are t h e

r e s u l t o f t h e breakdown o f defenses,,

. I n t h i s model, a separate curve i s needed n o t o n l y f o r each s t r e s s o r and

s t r a i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n , b u t a l s o f o r each defense o r s e t o f defenses which m i g h t be

used t o cope w i t h i t . Here a g a i n , s e v e r a l a s p e c t s o f the model a r e l i k e l y t o

i n v o l v e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and m i g h t be used t o r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r s o n s degree

0

of stress-tolerances 1) the degree o f s t r e s s w h i c h i s h i s t r u e lower t h r e s h o l d

( p o i n t a ) , 2) t h e g r a d i e n t of. the h y p o t h e t i c a l ( i . e . , defense-absent) s t r e s s -

s t r a i n c u r v e , 3) t h e p o i n t ( o r p o i n t s ) a t w h i c h c o p i n g mechanisms are i n t r o d u c e d

( p o i n t b o r d ) , 4) the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the defense i n r e d u c i n g the magnitude o f

s t r a i n , 5) the' p o i n t a t w h i c h the p r e f e r r e d defense f a i l s ( p o i n t c) , e t c . The

concept o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e takes on new complexities.

A new ( t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n ) and e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t concept i s i n t r o d u c e d i n

t h i s - model»»the concept o f c o p i n g w i t h s t r e s s . Unlike physical structures, persons

can and do respond t o s t r e s s i n ways t h a t reduce e i t h e r t h e s t r e s s o r the r e s u l t i n g

strains. People g e n e r a l l y a r e viewed more a p p r o p r i a t e l y as a c t i v e agents t h a n as

passive v i c t i m s i n s t r e s s f u l situations.

The b e h a v i o r s by w h i c h human b e i n g s a t t e m p t t o cope w i t h s t r e s s are e x t r e m e l y

v a r i a b l e and complex. They have l o n g been t h e s u b j e c t o f s p e c u l a t i o n and clinical

i n v e s t i g a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h i n the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c framework. Anna Freud's

(194.6) e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e p s y c h o a n a l y t i c mechanisms o f defense i s perhaps the

c l a s s i c i n t h e f i e l d , b u t e x t e n s i v e work on t h e s u b j e c t has been done by many

o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g F e n i c h e l , K l e i n , S p e r l i n g , Horney, Greenacre, Menninger, and

M i l l e r and Swanson. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p s y c h o a n a l y t i c o r i e n t a t i o n , most o f t h e s e

w r i t e r s s h a r e an emphasis on the i n d i v i d u a l . They tend t o r e g a r d c e r t a i n s t y l e s

o f c o p i n g a s e n d u r i n g I n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; they a r e more concerned w i t h

the i n n e r c o n f l i c t s w h i c h a r e b e i n g coped w i t h than w i t h t h e Immediate

 10-16

e n v i r o n m e n t a l circumstances w h i c h may have evoked the p r e s e n t episode o f c o n f l i c t

and c o p i n g . They d e s c r i b e t h e consequences o f coping p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f

i n d i v i d u a l enhancement o r i n c a p a c i t y .

More r e c e n t l y , James G. M i l l e r (1962)^has proposedv a d i f f e r e n t and potentially

complementary view. I n a r e v i e w o f more t h a n one thousand studies of overload,

M i l l e r o f f e r s seven b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s o f c o p i n g b e h a v i o r as m e a n i n g f u l f o r v a r i o u s

over-loaded systems, r a n g i n g from a . s i n g l e e l e c t r i c a l l y - s t i m u l a t e d neuron t o a

p o s t - o f f i c e a t Christmas t i m e . H i s concepts f o r coping w i t h o v e r l o a d ares omission,

e r r o r , queuing, f i l t e r i n g , a p p r o x i m a t i o n , m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f channels, and escape.

These c o n c e p t s were developed w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f g e n e r a l systems t h e o r y , and

they d e a l d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r s f o r the e f f i c i e n c y

of the o n g o i n g system. A t the l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e y

p o i n t t o t h e e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e n t c o p i n g s t y l e s on the o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r . t h a n the

individual.

Each o f ~ these approaches c o n t r i b u t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o our p r e s e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of coping processes b u t a s y s t e m a t i c t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n i n terms o f b a s i c

dimensions o f b e h a v i o r I s s t i l l l a c k i n g f o r t h e most p a r t . M i l l e r and Swanson (1960)

move toward such an. approach i n t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f defense mechanisms i n

terms o f f o u r b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s 1) s i m p l i c i t y " c o m p l e x i t y 0 o r the amount o f

p r e v i o u s l y developed s k i l l r e q u i r e d g 2) degree o f d i s t o r t i o n , o r range o f f a c t s ,

w h i c h a r e e l i m i n a t e d from awareness; 3) s p e c i f i c i t y - g e n e r a 1 ity« o r range o f c o n f l i c t s

and problems f o r which they are e f f e c t i v e ; and 4) s o c i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s , o r t h e degree

t o w h i c h s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e c r e a t e d by use o f t h e defense. The l a s t o f these

i s o f s p e c i a l importance v i s a v i s s t r e s s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , s i n c e i t r a i s e s t h e

whole q u e s t i o n o f t h e consequences o f c o p i n g b e h a v i o r s f o r l a r g e r systems.

The p e r s o n who c o n f r o n t s an e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r e s s may be viewed as potentially

h a v i n g t h r e e i n t e r r e l a t e d "tasks t o accomplishs 1) t o d e a l w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e

s i t u a t i o n so a s to reduce o r e l i m i n a t e I t s s t r e s s f u l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , I . e . j , t o r e s o l v e
 10-17

the core problem, 2) t o d e a l w i t h t h e t e n s i o n and n e g a t i v e emotions which t h e

s t r e s s a r o u s e s i n him, and 3) t o d e a l w i t h secondary o r d e r i v a t i v e problems which

may be c r e a t e d by h i s e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h t h e s t r e s s o r i t s e m o t i o n a l consequences.

L e t us l o o k a t each o f these more c l o s e l y .

1. Coping w i t h t h e core problem. The need f o r a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d con-

c e p t i o n o f s t r e s s has a l r e a d y been noted. A wide v a r i e t y o f o b j e c t i v e problems

may be s t r e s s f u l f o r any g i v e n person, and t y p i c a l l y t h e r e a r e many f a c t o r s o r

f o r c e s w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s t r e s s f u l n e s s o f any g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . We d i s c u s s e d

i n Chapter 3 t h e e x t r e m e l y v a r i e d and h i g h l y p e r s o n a l n a t u r e o f r o l e c o n f l i c t s - -

t h a t c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r e s s u r e s from t h e environment produce p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n f l i c t s

i n t h e p e r s o n , t h a t t h e needs, v a l u e s and c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e person as w e l l as

the e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o n f l i c t , and t h a t c o n f l i c t i s

generated, f o r t h e most p a r t , by pressures o r f o r c e s away from t h e s t a t u s quo. I n

Chapter 4 we saw t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f r o l e a m b i g u i t y i s s i m i l a r l y v a r i e d and p e r s o n a l .

I n f a c t , any s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n (which m i g h t be termed t h e core problem) i s a j o i n t

p r o d u c t o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l and p e r s o n a l factors.

Coping w i t h t h e core problem may i n v o l v e changing any one o r some c o m b i n a t i o n

o f these f a c t o r s . S o l u t i o n s may be found i n a l t e r a t i o n s I n e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e s ,

b a r r i e r s , r e s o u r c e s , procedures, e t c . , o r i n i n t e r n a l changes i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l .

P e r s o n a l changes may be m o t i v a t i o n a l , such as s h i f t s i n l e v e l o f a s p i r a t i o n ,

r e d u c i n g e g o - i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e j o b , f i n d i n g a l t e r n a t i v e channels o f g r a t i f i c a t i o n

f o r v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l needs, g i v i n g up o l d o r d e v e l o p i n g new p e r s o n a l v a l u e s o r

s t a n d a r d s o f b e h a v i o r , and t h e l i k e . They may i n v o l v e c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g

( e . g . , t h e p e r s o n i s made aware o f c o n d i t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s he f o r m e r l y f a i l e d

t o c o n s i d e r , o r he a l t e r s o r g i v e s up m i s c o n c e p t i o n s o f means-ends c o n n e c t i o n s )

w h i c h r e s u l t s I n changes i n h i s b e h a v i o r . Changes i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l may a l s o

I n v o l v e t h e l e a r n i n g o f new. s k i l l s and procedures, i n c r e a s i n g t h e person's

 10-18

c a p a c i t y t o conform t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s and t h e l i k e .

Coping mechanisms which i n v o l v e any o f t h e s e k i n d s o f i n t r a - i n d i v i d u a l changes

have t h e c h a r a c t e r o f accommodating the person t o t h e demands o f h i s environment.

The a d j u s t m e n t process i s t y p i c a l l y conceived i n these terms. The w e l l a d j u s t e d

person i s o f t e n seen as one who can r e a d i l y f i t h i m s e l f t o the e x t e r n a l r e a l i t i e s

of l i f e ' s circumstances. These a r e common g o a l s o f t r a i n i n g and t h e r a p y

programs.

The a d j u s t m e n t process i s l e s s o f t e n viewed i n terms o f changing those

e x t e r n a l r e a l i t i e s , o f accommodating the environment t o the person. However, i t

i s j u s t as i m p o r t a n t t o c o n s i d e r c o p i n g procedures which i n v o l v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l

changes. Two cases d i s c u s s e d i n e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s e x e m p l i f i e d e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h

s t r e s s by t r y i n g t o b r i n g about changes i n e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s . E x e c u t i v e , whose

core p r o b l e m o f a m b i g u i t y was exacerbated by an o v e r l o a d o f work i n h i s d i v i s i o n ,

requested, more man-power from h i s s u p e r i o r s and he a s s e r t s t h a t he w i l l , "keep

f i g h t i n g f o r more i f we need more." Foreman d e a l t w i t h h i s c o n f l i c t (between

p r e s s u r e s f r o m s u p e r i o r s f o r more p r o d u c t i o n and pressures from s u b o r d i n a t e s f o r

a more r e l a x e d pace) by s i d i n g w i t h h i s s u p e r i o r s and i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r e s s u r e s he

e x e r t e d on h i s men f o r more p r o d u c t i o n .

Many o t h e r examples o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y - o r i e n t e d coping t e c h n i q u e s can be

found. A c o u n t e r - a t t a c k i n response t o p r e s s u r e s from o t h e r s may be effective

i n r e d u c i n g those p r e s s u r e s . Requests f o r a d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s o r f o r changes i n

r e g u l a t i o n s , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , o r d i v i s i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may be

invoked i n times o f s t r e s s . Seeking more I n f o r m a t i o n from o t h e r s . o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n

i n incoming i n f o r m a t i o n i s perhaps t h e coping mechanism par e x c e l l e n c e f o r

problems o f a m b i g u i t y . Unique p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r . s i t u a t i o n a l changes a r e o f

course legion.

One t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r o m i s i n g b u t seldom used mechanism f o r coping w i t h r o l e

 10-19

c o n f l i c t s i s t o draw t o g e t h e r ones c l u s t e r o f r o l e senders^ t o c o n f r o n t them w i t h

i

the d i f f i c u l t y they c r e a t e , and t o e n l i s t t h e i r a i d i n a j o i n t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g '

venture.

Changes i n person^environment r e l a t i o n s a r e a l s o i n v o l v e d i n coping behavior.

Homey p o i n t s o u t t h e f r u i t f u l h e s s o f g r o u p i n g mechanisms i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s :

moving t o w a r d s , moving a g a i n s t , and moving away from t h e ( p r i m a r i l y social)

environment.

The approach-avoidance dimension i n r e l a t i o n t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior i n

c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y Important. When faced w i t h a sender-sender

c o n f l i c t , one t e c h n i q u e would be t o i n c r e a s e t h e frequency o f ones c o n t a c t s w i t h

senders, s e e k i n g t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t t h r o u g h compromise o r improved c o o r d i n a t i o n

or c o o p e r a t i o n . However, i n such s i t u a t i o n s many i n d i v i d u a l s a t t e m p t t h e r e v e r s e ;

they d i m i n i s h t h e frequency o f t h e i r c o n t a c t s w i t h a s s o c i a t e s as though they were

t r y i n g t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t t h r o u g h l i m i t i n g t h e i r r e c e p t i v i t y t o sent r o l e

pressures. I n some cases t h e r e d u c t i o n i n c o n t a c t s i s accomplished through a

r e l a t i v e l y p a s s i v e process o f w i t h d r a w a l and e v a s i o n ; i n o t h e r s , an a c t i v e and

p e r s i s t e n t r e j e c t i o n o f associates i s involved.

W h i l e t h e i n c r e a s e o r decrease o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t by a person under

s t r e s s may be t r e a t e d as a n example o f a broad coping s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an

"approach o r avoidance tendency," t h e i n c r e a s e o r decrease i n c o n t a c t cannot be

c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d unless the k i n d o f contact t h a t i s being increased or

decreased i s known and t h e senders t h a t a r e b e i n g c o n t a c t e d more o r l e s s f r e q u e n t l y

are i d e n t i f i e d . Even though i t may be c o n s i d e r e d an approach, an i n c r e a s e " i n

c o n t a c t w i t h senders can r e p r e s e n t i n one case a heightened dependency on s u p e r i o r s ,

i n another case an a t t e m p t a t j o i n t problem s o l v i n g and i n s t i l l o t h e r s , a h o f i - t i l e

a t t a c k aimed a t d e s t r o y i n g t h e o t h e r .

The approach-avoidance dimension may a l s o be a p p l i e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e

 10>20

acceptance o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . O f t e n a c o n f l i c t o f r o l e steadings r e s u l t s when some

senders p r e s s u r e the f o c a l person t o produce more o r t o p e r f o r m t a s k s not c l e a r l y

indicated i n h i s job d e f i n i t i o n . Some i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t i g n o r e , t h e sendings, o r

d e l a y a c t i n g o n them p r o v i d e d t h e y f e l t the senders c o u l d not a c t u a l l y e n f o r c e

t h e i r requests. However, many f o c a l persons i n our sample r e a c t e d t o t h i s sort

of s i t u a t i o n by a c c e p t i n g the new sendings and by t a k i n g on new and g r e a t e r

responsibilities. The r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t t h r o u g h t h e acceptance o f a d d i t i o n a l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be viewed as a g e n e r a l s t y l e o f coping f o r some i n d i v i d u a l s ,

b u t t h e consequences o f a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s t y p i c a l use of. such a s t y l e

may n o t be c o m p l e t e l y understood w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o o t h e r a s p e c t s o f h i s

personality. For example, a f l e x i b l e person who cannot say "no" because he

wants everyone t o l i k e him m i g h t soon f i n d h i m s e l f overwhelmed by the a d d i t i o n a l

p r e s s u r e s h e a c c e p t s , w h i l e a c l e v e r and somewhat o p p o r t u n i s t i c i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t

hew a p a t h t o p r o m o t i o n t h r o u g h s e l e c t i v e nay«saying and j u d i c i o u s acceptance o f

additional responsibility. I n summary, a wide v a r i e t y o f coping, r e a c t i o n s serve

e i t h e r t o engage the person more a c t i v e l y i n the s i t u a t i o n o r t o remove him from i t

physically o r psychologically,

2, Coping w i t h e m o t i o n a l consequences o f s t r e s s . Moderate l e v e l s o f t e n s i o n

and o t h e r n e g a t i v e emotions sometimes p e r f o r m i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s , o f course.

O f t e n , a p e r s o n f i r s t becomes aware t h a t a problem r e q u i r e s a t t e n t i o n when he f e e l s

the t e n s i o n b u i l d i n g up. The p s y c h o a n a l y t i c n o t i o n o f " s i g n a l a n x i e t y " r e f l e c t s

this notion. A t t h i s l e v e l , coping w i t h the t e n s i o n u s u a l l y i s accomplished b y

the a c t o f c o p i n g w i t h t h e core problem. T e n s i o n a t a moderate l e v e l i s a l s o a n

e n e r g i z e r , i n c r e a s i n g m o t i v a t i o n f o r p r o d u c t i v e work. A somewhat common p r a c t i c e

i n m a n a g e r i a l c i r c l e s i s t o keep ones s u b o r d i n a t e s "a l i t t l e hungry 11

so t h a t t h e y

w i l l s t r i v e a l i t t l e harder. But more i n t e n s e e m o t i o n a l l e v e l s i n t e r f e r e w i t h

p r o d u c t i v e work. A t t e n t i o n i s f r e q u e n t l y t u r n e d away from t h e problem and toward

 10-21

the e m o t i o n i t s e l f . Responses tend t o become d i f f u s e and u n c o o r d i n a t e d . From the

p e r s o n s p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e emotion i s j the problem.

0

A n x i e t y and h o s t i l i t y a r e two o f the most common a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o s t r e s s ,

b u t t h e range o f t e c h n i q u e s a v a i l a b l e f o r c o p i n g w i t h these f e e l i n g s v a r i e s

w i d e l y f r o m person t o person. Some people express t h e i r h o s t i l i t y d i r e c t l y toward

t h e person a t whom t h e y a r e angry, e x h i b i t i n g ^varying degrees o f c o n t r o l o v e r what

they do o r say, and w i t h e f f e c t s r a n g i n g from a c o n s t r u c t i v e c l e a r i n g t h e a i r so t h a t

1

work can be d b n e , t o a sometimes i r r e v e r s i b l e e x a c e r b a t i o n o f t h e c o n f l i c t .

l
Other

persons seem t o be a b l e t o g e t t h e anger o u t o f t h e i r systems o n l y by w i t h d r a w i n g

f r o m t h e s i t u a t i o n l o n g enough t o "walk i t o f f ' o r , as Foreman does, by c o n t a i n i n g

1

themselves u n t i l g o i n g home and t h e n a l l o w i n g t h e anger t o s p i l l o u t i n t o quarrels

-i

w i t h the f a m i l y .

I n d i v i d u a l s a l s o d i f f e r i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h they seem conscious and

a c c e p t i n g o f t h e i r h o s t i l e and a n x l e t o u s r e a c t i o n s . One o f t h e f o c a l persons i n

t h e i n t e n s i v e s t u d y , f o r example, Impressed a n i n t e r v i e w e r by h i s unusual calm

and p o i s e a s he d e s c r i b e d v e r y s t r e s s f u l I n c i d e n t s ; he denied e x p e r i e n c i n g much "

t e n s i o n and anger, b u t r e v e a l e d , on f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i n g , a h i s t o r y o f g a s t r o i n -

t e s t i n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s w h i c h seemed t o be s e t o f f by these i n c i d e n t s . The use o f

d e n i a l t o r e l i e v e a n x i e t y by f i a t , as i t were, i s n o t always unconscious; one :

respondent s t a t e d t h a t he always made a c o n s c i o u s e f f o r t t o focus h i s attention

away from a n x i e t y when i t becomes t o o g r e a t . T h i s he accomplished t h r o u g h

f a n t a s y ; he t y p i c a l l y would imagine h i m s e l f on v a c a t i o n , f i s h i n g o r p l a y i n g g o l f ,

a l o n e , serene and i n complete c o n t r o l o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . He would d o t e on each

d e t a i l o f t h e f a n t a s y , a l m o s t as though he were r u n n i n g i t t h r o u g h a p r o j e c t o r a t

slow m o t i o n , u n t i l f i n a l l y he succeeded i n d r i v i n g away awareness o f h i s a n x i e t y .

I n o t h e r cases, h o s t i l i t y seems t o be d i m i n i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f p r o j e c t i o n ,

i . e . , by a t t r i b u t i n g t h e anger o r t h e cause o f the. anger t o o t h e r persons. In

 10-22

t h i s way an emotion w h i c h t h r e a t e n s t h e I n d i v i d u a l t h r o u g h , say, t h e a r o u s a l o f

g u i l t , may be more s a f e l y e x p e r i e n c e d as r i g h t e o u s i n d i g n a t i o n i n r e a c t i o n t o t h e

sins o f others, s

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e v a r i e t y o f i n t e r n a l defense mechanisms used t o cope w i t h

a n x i e t y , h o s t i l i t y and g u i l t ^ - i . e . , r e p r e s s i o n , i s o l a t i o n , p r o j e c t i o n , d i s p l a c e m e n t ,

t u r n i n g - a g a i n s t - t h e - s e l f , f a n t a s y , etc.«-many people t u r n t o such o t h e r d e v i c e s

as a l c o h o l , b a r b i t u a t e s , and s e l f - I n d u l g e n c e i n sensory p l e a s u r e s ( e . g . , " I take

a h o t b a t h , c l i m b i n t o bed and r e a d " ) * " L e n g t h e n i n g t h e c o c k t a i l hour d u r i n g

p e r i o d s o f s t r e s s i s t h e e x e c u t i v e ' s c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e foreman°s s t o p p i n g a t a
b a r on t h e way-home, and " b e l t i n g a few,"
. 1 •

The above i l l u s t r a t i o n s do n o t i n d i c a t e whether, the. success o f a person°s

a t t e m p t s t o reduce e m o t i o n a l t e n s i o n a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e success o f h i s a t t e m p t s

t o cope w i t h t h e core problem, A./person who s o m a t i c i z e s h i s h o s t i l i t y , who d e n i e s

h i s f e e l i n g s , o r who k i c k s h i s dog i n s t e a d o f h i s s u p e r v i s o r , may be a b l e t o cope

adequately w i t h the o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t o f r o l e p r e s s u r e even though he has n o t

a d e q u a t e l y coped w i t h whatever e m o t i o n a l c o n f l i c t has been engendered i n him. The

s t e r e o t y p e o f t h e s u c c e s s f u l though u l c e r o u s - e x e c u t i v e concerns t h i s and t e s t i f i e s

t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between two problems w i t h which t h e person must

cope,

3, The problem o f d e r i v a t i v e problems. I n a sense, t h e a r o u s a l o f i n t e n s e ,

p o t e n t i a l l y d e b i l i t a t i n g emotions i s a d e r i v a t i v e problem w n l c h grows our o f and

i s . p a r t o f t h e person°s e x p e r i e n c e o f s t r e s s - - t o t h e core problem i s added a

•secondary p r o b l e m . . B u t t h e person°s r e a c t i o n t o e i t h e r o f t h e s e , h i s coping

response, o f t e n c r e a t e s s t i l l o t h e r problems,

Foreman°s r e a c t i o n t o h i s c o n f l i c t produced c o n f l i c t s f o r h i s men; t h e Union

Steward "screamed." Moreover, t h e U n i o n s n e g a t i v e response produces a d d i t i o n a l

0

. • , i- :
problems f o r Foreman because h i s j o b s e c u r i t y i s dependent i n p a r t on h i s
 10-23

a c c e p t i b i l i t y t o the Union s h o u l d he be demoted from h i s s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n .

E x e c u t i v e s e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h t h e o v e r l o a d problem by b r i n g i n g i n more men

9
also

c r e a t e s an a d d i t i o n a l c o n f l i c t f o r him. To g e t the work done, as w e l l as f o r the

i • •

good o f t h e company, he must h i r e the most e x p e r i e n c e d and b e s t t r a i n e d men he

can f i n d . However, he f e e l s v e r y t h r e a t e n e d by the prospect o f the pre.sence o f

c o m p e t i t o r s f o r f u t u r e rewards who a r e p o t e n t i a l l y more competent t h a n he.

Many o f t h e coping t e c h n i q u e s discussed above t y p i c a l l y produce secondary

problems. The dangers i n h e r e n t i n a h o s t i l e c o u n t e r - a t t a c k are obvious, b u t even

a m i l d e r r e j e c t i o n o f o t h e r s , i f used p e r s i s t e n t l y , may destroy the p o s s i b i l i t y

of e n l i s t i n g t h e i r aid in-the future. In situations of substantial interdependence,

withdrawal from senders f r e q u e n t l y provokes them t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r p r e s s u r e s , thus

r e - c r e a t i n g t h e problem w i t h w h i c h the person was a t t e m p t i n g t o cope. Either

moving a g a i n s t or'moving away from ones r o l e senders i s a p t t o be d i s p l e a s i n g i f

n o t c o m p l e t e l y u n a c c e p t i b l e f o r them. I n t e r p e r s o n a l problems, a l t h o u g h l e s s

common, may a l s o r e s u l t from moving toward o t h e r s — t h e y o f t e n r e s e n t one who

c l i n g s t o them i n dependency, r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r autonomy.

P r o j e c t i o n o f o n e s ' h o s t i l i t y onto o t h e r s n o t o n l y does them ah i n j u s t i c e , b u t

a l s o makes' e a s i e r , g u i l t - f r e e a g g r e s s i o n a g a i n s t , them. I f they counter-aggress,

the s i t u a t i o n w i l l be more s t r e s s f u l b u t the p r o j e c t i o n i s a l s o " j u s t i f i e d . "

D i s p l a c e m e n t , e.g., t a k i n g o u t ones j o b - i n d u c e d h o s t i l i t y on ones w i f e , i s another

defense mechanism w e l l c a l c u l a t e d t o produce a d d i t i o n a l problems--an unhappy home

offers l i t t l e c o n s o l a t i o n a t t h e end o f a t r o u b l e d day. Adding m i s p l a c e d aggression

to l a c k o f - c o m p a n i o n s h i p makes many an " o f f i c e widow" i n t o a d i v o r c e .

Defenses i n v o l v i n g I n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n a l and c o g n i t i v e changes o f t e n produce

d e r i v a t i v e problems a l s o . Reduction i n l e v e l o f a s p i r a t i o n I s sometimes r e a l i s t i c

b u t i t o f t e n r e s u l t s i n a c u r t a i l m e n t o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n — t h e person may no

l o n g e r make f u l l use o f h i s s k i l l s and t a l e n t s and may f a i l t o develop up t o h i s

 10-24

potential. Apathy r e p l a c e s s e l f - e s t e e m . T u r n i n g - a g a i n s t - t h e - s e l f may i n v o l v e

similar costs.

Such d e f e n s e s as d e n i a l and r e p r e s s i o n , w h i c h i n v o l v e d i s t o r t i o n s o f r e a l i t y ,

n o t o n l y undermine t h e person's a b i l i t y t o f i n d o b j e c t i v e s o l u t i o n s t o h i s c o r e

problem, b u t a l s o ( t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he i s unaware o f f a c t o r s - and f o r c e s i n t h e

s i t u a t i o n ) make h i m l e s s a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e and r e s o l v e a d d i t i o n a l problems t h a t

arise. Two o f t h e dimensions proposed by M i l l e r and Swanson a r e thus r e l e v a n t t o

the p r o b a b i l i t y o f d e r i v a t i v e problems, degree o f d i s t o r t i o n and s o c i a l

effectiveness.

Most c o p i n g procedures a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e t o some degree; n o t a l l o f them r e s u l t

i n a d d i t i o n a l problems and even those w h i c h do, a l s o g e n e r a l l y produce some g a i n s .

They wouldn°t be repeated i f they d i d n ' t . However, c o p i n g w i t h s t r e s s and i t s

associated emotional s t a t e s always i n v o l v e s some c o s t t o t h e person, i f o n l y

i n time and energy. I n many cases, due t o t h e secondary problems c r e a t e d by

coping b e h a v i o r , the costs are very great.

The Measurement o f I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s .

As i n d i c a t e d i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n above, i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p l a y a

m a j o r p a r t i n t h e dynamics o f a d j u s t m e n t t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y . They a r e

apt t o c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e generation o f environmental stress. Emotional

r e a c t i o n s t o s t r e s s a r e l a r g e l y c o n t r o l l e d by p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s , and t h e mechanisms

a v a i l a b l e f o r c o p i n g w i t h t h e s t r e s s and i t s e m o t i o n a l consequences a r e w e l l r o o t e d

i n p r o p e r t i e s o f ones p e r s o n a l i t y . Moreover, t h e c r e a t i o n o f secondary, d e r i v a t i v e

problems i s dependent, i n p a r t , on i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s .

I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , w h i l e h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , are also extremely varied

and complex. As we have seen, t h e n o t i o n o f a simple dimension o f s t r e s s - t o l e r a n c e

i s inadequate. W h i l e much i s known about t h e n a t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and

personal psychodynamics, a s y s t e m a t i c , comprehensive t h e o r y o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s s t i l l

 10-25

I n the o f f i n g . Procedures, f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement o f p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s are

s i m i l a r l y i n a state.of r e l a t i v e infancy. Even c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y those a s p e c t s o f

p e r s o n a l i t y w h i c h a r e r e l e v a n t t o s t r e s s g e n e r a t e d by p r o p e r t i e s o f o c c u p a t i o n a l

r o l e s , t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f the f i e l d r e q u i r e s b o t h e c l e c t i c i s m and rough-

a p p r o x i m a t i o n i n measurement. I n s p i t e o f r e c e n t advances i n t h e f i e l d o f

p e r s o n a l i t y , t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c e p t u a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems remain.

1. R e a c t i v e v s . p r e d i s p o s i n g f a c t o r s . Much o f t h e r e s e a r c h on individual

d i f f e r e n c e s lias focused on t h e tendency f o r people t o r e a c t d i f f e r e n t i a l l y t o

various situations. T h a t i s , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s are seen as eliciting

v a r i o u s k i n d s o f c o g n i t i v e , e m o t i o n a l , and b e h a v i o r a l responses, b u t responses

will differ from person t o person f o r any g i v e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n . The

r e a c t i v e f u n c t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y a l s o r e f l e c t s d i f f e r e n c e s i n a l e r t n e s s and

sensitivity t o v a r i o u s e x t e r n a l circumstances-=we a l l have our " b l i n d s p o t s " and

areas o f s p e c i a l concern.

On t h e o t h e r hand, r e s e a r c h on m o t i v a t i o n i s p r e d i c a t e d on the assumption

t h a t t h e p e r s o n i s a s t r i v i n g , d r i v i n g , g o a l - d i r e c t e d agent who, r a t h e r than

m e r e l y w a i t i n g f o r the environment t o do something t o him, a c t i v e l y seeks o u t

c e r t a i n environments and works t o change o t h e r s . The d i s t i n c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d

by t h e e x p r e s s i o n s , "He becomes angry when i n s u l t e d , " v s . "He goes around l o o k i n g

for a fight." The language o f motives=-needs, wishes, v a l u e s , Impulses, v a l e n c e s ,

g o a l S j e t c . = = i s g e n e r a l l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t h a n the language o f t r a i t s . Yet,

m o t i v a t i o n s and s e n s i t i v i t i e s , p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s and r e a c t i o n p a t t e r n s are

undoubtedly closely Interrelated, N e i t h e r the d i s t i n c t i o n nor the i n t e g r a t i o n

o f these i s w e l l r e f l e c t e d i n p r e s e n t assessment t e c h n i q u e s ,

2. S t a t e s vs. enduring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . While an i n d i v i d u a l responds

differently from one t i m e t o a n o t h e r , even i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s , t h e r e are a l s o

major c o n t i n u i t i e s i n h i s behavior. The f a c t t h a t we speak o f a person a c t i n g

 10-26

" o u t o f c h a r a c t e r " r e f l e c t s t h e n o t i o n t h a t he has b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s which are " i n

character." Temporary e x p e r i e n c e s and i n c i d e n t a l responses must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d

from t y p i c a l and r e c u r r e n t r e a c t i o n p a t t e r n s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s made more

obscure by t h e frequency w i t h w h i c h enduring traits are given behavioral or s t a t e -

d e s c r i p t i v e names. Acute a n x i e t y a t t a c k s may be common experiences f o r an "anxious

person/ 1
b u t they a l s o sometimes occur i n the most e m o t i o n a l l y s t a b l e .

P e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d g e n e r a l l y t o measure t y p i c a l , modal,

r e l a t i v e l y s i t u a t i o n - f r e e response p a t t e r n s t h a t r e c u r over t i m e , b u t t h e r e i s

considerable evidence t h a t scores on such t r a i t s can be r a i s e d and lowered

experimentally. Adequate s t u d i e s o f s t a b i l i t y o f p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s over

time a r e f e w and f a r between. Therefore, i t i sd i f f i c u l t t o determine t o what

e x t e n t a s c o r e on a p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e , d e p r e s s i o n f o r example fl represents a

c u r r e n t ( p o s s i b l y a t y p i c a l ) s t a t e or r e l a t i v e l y enduring set o f r e a c t i o n s .

The assessment o f m o t i v a t i o n i n v o l v e s a s i m i l a r b u t somewhat d i f f e r e n t

problem t h a n s t a t e vs. t r a i t . W h i l e i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e to. speak o f a person as

h a v i n g a s t r o n g need f o r achievement o r sex d r i v e o r f e a r o f t h e unknown, such

motives a r e 5 o f course, n o t always a c t i v e . However m o t i v a t i o n i s conceptualized,

v a r i a t i o n s i n a r o u s a l and s a t i a t i o n must be r e c o g n i z e d . Thus s when measurement

o c c u r s a t a s i n g l e p o i n t i n t i m e , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a person w i l l be assessed

as s t r o n g o r weak on a g i v e n m o t i v e w i l l depend h e a v i l y on whether a t t h a t time

the m o t i v e i s aroused o r q u i e s c e n t . Thus a p e r s o n s s t a t u s o r r e c o g n i t i o n needs

0

a r e more a p t t o be prominent j u s t b e f o r e t h a n j u s t a f t e r a promotion.

Regarding the a n a l y s i s i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters, standardized personality

s c a l e s a r e g e n e r a l l y assumed t o be measures o f f a i r l y e n d u r i n g characteristics of

the person, p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h he b r i n g s i n t o a s i t u a t i o n and which i n f l u e n c e h i s

response t o i t . Though w i t h l e s s c o n f i d e n c e , a s i m i l a r assumption i s made

r e g a r d i n g t h e assessment o f m o t i v e s . However, I t i s I m p o r t a n t t o recognize t h e

 10-27

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t these..properties (and thus h i s score) are t e m p o r a r i l y induced by

the s i t u a t i o n and even t h a t . e n d u r i n g t r a i t s a r e a l t e r e d by h i s e x p e r i e n c e i n the

situation,

3, Conceptual s i m p l i c i t y ys, complexity. Parsimony and e x p l a n a t o r y power

are b a s i c v i r t u e s i n t h e development o f s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y , b u t they a r e o f t e n a t

odds w i t h one a n o t h e r . Much o f t h i s chapter has been devoted t o t h e need f o r more

i i

complex and r e a l i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i f an

adequate u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e dynamics o f a d j u s t m e n t i s t o be a c h i e v e d . However,

t h i n g s soon g e t o u t o f hand i f t h i s process o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n goes on u n r e s t r i c t e d ;

the c o n c e p t u a l system soon becomes more e l a b o r a t e and complex t h a n we are a b l e t o

( .
g r a s p , much l e s s work w i t h a n a l y t i c a l l y . Here, as i n a l l f i e l d s , we are unable t o
'•

deal w i t h the f u l l complexity of r e a l i t y .

Out o f t h e v i r t u a l l y i n f i n i t e number o f ways people can d i f f e r , we need t o

a b s t r a c t t h o s e 'basic dimensions w h i c h make a d i f f e r e n c e . But t h i s i s the dilemma.

For one t h i n g , the dimensions w h i c h are b a s i c f o r v a r i o u s purposes o f t e n are n o t

known i n advance. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a b s t r a c t i o n process makes us i g n o r e a g r e a t

mass o f d e t a i l , and o f t e n the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s I s t o be found i n

the s p e c i f i c c o m b i n a t i o n o f d e t a i l s which produce those r e s u l t s . Characterizing

the person i n terms o f h i s p o s i t i o n on a l i m i t e d s e t o f dimensions facilitates

a n a l y s i s a t the p o s s i b l e c o s t o f f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g the dynamics o f h i s p a r t i c u l a r

case.

The c h o i c e between c o n c e p t u a l and m e n s u r a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y vs. r i c h n e s s o f

d e t a i l i s n e v e r easy. I t i s a l l the more d i f f i c u l t g i v e n the e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e

o f the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h . Many o f t h e r e s u l t s presented i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s

a r e based o n a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f

p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions o r v a r i a b l e s , b u t i n Chapter 14 we t u r n t o , a n a n a l y s i s o f

s i x cases and c o n s i d e r a much w i d e r range o f i n f o r m a t i o n about b o t h t h e person and

 10-28

his situation,

4, The problem o f s e l f = l n s i g h t and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . An a d d i t i o n a l problem i n

p e r s o n a l i t y assessment d e r i v e s from t h e f a c t t h a t people f r e q u e n t l y l a c k i n s i g h t

i n t o t h e i r own p e r s o n a l dynamics. They a r e o f t e n poor r e p o r t e r s r e g a r d i n g their

i •
own p e r s o n a l i t i e s , , i n s p i t e o f p e r s i s t e n t s e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n , because o f d i s t o r t i o n s

b o t h i n s e l f ^ p e r c e p t i o n and i n t h e r e p o r t i n g p r o c e s s . Moreover, common language

d e s c r i p t i o n s o f personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f r e q u e n t l y f a i l t o I d e n t i f y the genotypic

dimensions o f importance i n s y s t e m a t i c research,, Since t h e person i s unaware o f

some a s p e c t s o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , h i s defenses d o n ' t p e r m i t a c c u r a t e r e p o r t s on

•i . i • -• ,

o t h e r a s p e c t s , and he l a c k s a n adequate,conceptual language, h i s s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s

1

cannot a l w a y s be t a k e n a t face v a l u e . Rather s a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process r e q u i r e d ,

based o n o t h e r t h i n g s known about t h e person o r on known c o r r e l a t e s o f such

m a t e r i a l f o r people i n g e n e r a l . The c o n v e r s i o n o f raw data i n t o c o n c e p t u a l " v a r i a b l e

\

i n t h i s f i e l d as i n many o t h e r s , i s o f t e n complex and i m p r e c i s e . Problems o f

v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y a r e i n h e r e n t i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process j u s t as i n

the c o l l e c t i o n o f raw d a t a . The use o f s t a n d a r d i z e d - o b j e c t i v e personality

i n v e n t o r i e s make such d i f f i c u l t i e s somewhat l e s s a c u t e , b u t they cannot be escaped

altogether.

The present Investigation contributes r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e to the resolution of

any o f t h e s e f o u r problems. Their r e c o g n i t i o n i s nonetheless important. Because

of, and i n some r e s p e c t s i n s p i t e o f , these p r o b l e m s 9 a b r o a d , e c l e c t i c approach

t o t h e measurement o f p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s was t a k e n I n t h e I n t e n s i v e s t u d y .

A v a r i e t y o f a n a l y t i c and i n t e r p r e t i v e t e c h n i q u e s were a l s o i n t r o d u c e d to help

overcome some o f these dilemmas and t o i n c r e a s e c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e

results. Two g e n e r a l approaches t o p e r s o n a l i t y assessment were u t i l i z e d ? 1)

previously s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s and i n v e n t o r i e s based, f o r the most p a r t , on f o r c e d -

c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a r e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e i n n a t u r e , and 2) i n t e r p r e t i v e
 10-29

assessments-based on c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s o f p r o t o c o l s from l o n g and open-ended d e p t h

interviews. The s p e c i f i c dimensions and v a r i a b l e s a r e presented and d i s c u s s e d
below.

P e r s o n a l i t y dimensions d e r i v e d from s t a n d a r d i z e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Each f o c a l

person i n t h e i n t e n s i v e study completed a broad b a t t e r y o f o b j e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y

t e s t s c o n t a i n i n g a t o t a l o f 323 items and 23 separate s c a l e s . * " They were drawn

from t h e MMPI, t h e C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y ( C P I ) , C a t t e l l ^ s IPAT A n x i e t y

t e s t and 16 P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (16PF), t h e C o r n e l l M e d i c a l Index

(CMI), and' f r o m p r e v i o u s work by t h e s t a f f o f t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research.

The s e l e c t i o n o f s p e c i f i c s c a l e s was based on t h e i r assumed r e l e v a n c e t o t h e

g e n e r a t i o n o f and r e a c t i o n t o problems o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y , t o p a t t e r n s

of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s , or t o the c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f personality w i t h occupational

role requirements. A l t h o u g h no a t t e m p t was made t o sample t h e e n t i r e domain o f

personality t r a i t s , t h e b a t t e r y as a whole seems t o be f a i r l y comprehensive f o r

research purposes.

Some o f t h e s c a l e s a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d and measure v a r i o u s

aspects o f s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s o f behavior. I n o r d e r t o reduce redundancy and t o

d i s c o v e r t h e b a s i c o r t h o g o n a l dimensions b e i n g tapped by t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f
2

t e s t s , a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r c d r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x o f these t e s t s was conducted.

Since s c a l e s c o r e s , r a t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l i t e m responses were e n t e r e d i n t o t h e

m a t r i x , t h e r e s u l t i n g f a c t o r s p r o b a b l y a r e b e s t t h o u g h t o f as second o r d e r f a c t o r s ,

i n Cattell°s sense o f t h e term. Table 10-1 p r e s e n t s t h e l o a d i n g s o f t h e major

identifying s c a l e s f o r each o f t h e f i v e b a s i c f a c t o r s which were d e r i v e d .

T7 ~ ~ ~ "
A sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be found among t h e appendix m a t e r i a l s , t o g e t h e r w i t h
d e t a i l s o f i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and s c o r i n g o f t h e s p e c i f i c indexes.
2.'
The f a c t o r m a t r i x and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r a n a l y t i c t e c h n i q u e used i s
found i n t h e Appendix.
 10-30

G i v e n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e component t e s t s , t h e i r interdependence, and the

l i m i t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f t h e sample, one cannot assume t h a t these factors

i

r e p r e s e n t t h e b a s i c i r r e d u c i b l e dimensions o f human b e h a v i o r . Their generality

nonetheless, i s a t t e s t e d t o by t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o o t h e r f a c t o r m a t r i c e s found

i n s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s by a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s . However, the

f a c t o r a n a l y t i c technique i s viewed p r i m a r i l y (somewhat c o n s e r v a t i v e l y ) as a

data r e d u c t i o n and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n process and, because o f the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

n a t u r e o f t h e m a t e r i a l so a n a l y z e d , i t i s u s e f u l i n r e v e a l i n g and p o r t r a y i n g t h e
i

complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s - , w h i c h e x i s t among a. p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f v a r i a b l e s . A few

i n t e r p r e t i v e comments about each o f the o b t a i n e d f a c t o r s seems i n o r d e r .

I n s e r t Table 10-1 about here
i
i
;
1. N e u r o t i c a n x i e t y vs. e m o t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Factor 1 i s c l e a r l y a n e u r o t i c -
i . i

ism f a c t o r b a s i c a l l y composed o f items r e f e r r i n g t o p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l

m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f a n x i e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y neurasthemia, d e p r e s s i o n , hypersensitivity,

and l a c k o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . T h i s f a c t o r b e a r s a marked resemblance t o one which

French ( 1 9 5 3 ) , i n h i s ' c o m p a r i s o n s o f 450 f a c t o r s d e r i v e d from f a c t o r a n a l y t i c

s t u d i e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y , r e f e r s t o as " e m o t i o n a l i t y " o r " n e u r o t i c t e n d e n c i e s . n

I t

i s , o f c o u r s e , a l s o q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e second-order f a c t o r C a t t e l l c a l l s " a n x i e t y , "

•' • !
0

and w e l l I t s h o u l d , g i v e n t h e prevalence o f C a t t e l l * s s c a l e s i n t h e m a t r i x . In

f a c t , t h e t o t a l IPAT A n x i e t y s c a l e l o a d s .90 on t h i s factor.

C o n s i d e r i n g the known c o r r e l a t e s o f the s c a l e s w h i c h make up F a c t o r 1 and the

m a n i f e s t c o n t e n t o f t h e i r component i t e m s , t h e r e a r e a number o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

which a p e r s o n a t the h i g h end o f t h i s dimension can p r o b a b l y be expected t o haves

1) extreme s e n s i t i v i t y t o p o t e n t i a l l y s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s , 2) a proneness toward

the e x p e r i e n c e o f a v a r i e t y . o f n e g a t i v e e m o t i o n a l s t a t e s ( t e n s i o n , a n x i e t y , g u i l t ,

e t c . ) , 3) f a t i g u e and I m m o b i l i z a t i o n o f energy f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e work, '4) concern

w i t h h e a l t h , 5) low s e l f - e s t e e m and u n r e a l i s t i c a t t i t u d e s toward t h e s e l f . By

 10-31

j, u i i A'.n i i r • 'a r r a a n e ^ = ^ ^ = • , , w , r, , , , i i , • i , , \ , • - i ;TTT", ,. . • . ,, . , r • usx

Table 10-1

P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r s D e r i v e d from S e l f - D e s c r i p t i v e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

F a c t o r 1. N e u r o t i c A n x i e t y vs." E m o t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y Factor Loading

(IPAT-O) G u i l t proneness o r f r e e f l o a t i n g a n x i e t y .77
(IPAT-Q4) I n n e r c o n f l i c t and t e n s i o n ; e r g l c o r d r i v e t e n s i o n .74
(MMPI) L a s s i t u d e m a l a i s e ; d e p r e s s i o n , n e u r o s t e n i a .73
(IPAT-Q3) (Lack o f ) S e l f - s e n t i m e n t c o n t r o l o r w i l l power -.51
( B e r n r e u t e r F l ) N e u r o t i c ism .48
i (CMI-Gurin) P h y s i o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s o f a n x i e t y .43
(16PF-F) (De)surgency -.37
F a c t o r 2. F a v o r a b l e vs. Unfavorable Expressed Self-Regard
S e l f c o n t r o l (CPI) .78
P r o b a b l e d i s t o r t i o n o r l i e s c a l e (ISR, p r o j e c t s t a f f ) .73
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (CPI) .55
(Lack o f ) Unhappy c h i l d h o o d (ISR, p r o j e c t s t a f f ) -.49
Ego s t r e n g t h (IPAT-C) .46
S e l f - s e n t i m e n t c o n t r o l o r w i l l power (IPAT-Q3) .45
T o l e r a n c e (CPI) .41
F a c t o r 3. F l e x i b i l i t y vs. R i g i d i t y .
F l e x i b i l i t y (CPI) .76
(Lack o f ) P h y s i o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s o f a n x i e t y (CMI-Gurln) -.47
T o l e r a n c e (CPI) 1
.32
(Lack o f ) S e l f - s e n t i m e n t c o n t r o l o r w i l l power (IPAT-Q3) -.,28
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (CPI) .23
(Lack o f ) N e u r o t i c i s m ( B e r n r e u t e r - F l ) -.21

F a c t o r 4. E x t r o v e r s i o n vs', I n t r o v e r s i o n
Surgency (16PF-F) .57
(Lack o f ) N e u r o t i c i s m ( B e r n r e u t e r - F l ) -.56
(Lack o f ) S o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n o r s o l i t a r i n e s s ( B e r n r e u t e r - F 2 ) -.47
(Lack o f ) i n t e l l i g e n c e (16PF-B) -.46
Parmia (16PF-H) .37
(Lack o f ) Need f o r independence (ISR-ZIpf-Vrootn) -.37
C y c l o t h y m i a (16PF-A) .32
F a c t o r 5. A g g r e s s i v e Independence vs. G e n i a l Responsiveness
. P r o t e n s i o n or p a r a n o i d t r e n d (16PF-L) / .65
Unhappy c h i l d h o o d (ISR, p r o j e c t s t a f f )
t .38
S c h l z o t h y m i a (Lack o f C y c l o t h y m i a : 16PF-A) -.30
(Lack o f ) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (CPI) • -.29
(Lack o f ) / I n t e l l i g e n c e (16PF-B) -.28
(Lack o f ) T o l e r a n c e (CPI) -.25

°An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r was o b t a i n e d h a v i n g j u s t two scales-'-job s a t i s f a c t i o n and

confidence i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u p e r I o r s - - w I t h s i g n i f i c a n t , loadings. Neither o f
:

those measures l o a d s s i g n i f i c a n t l y on any o t h e r f a c t o r . Inasmuch as these

measures are seen as r e l a t i v e l y temporary a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s t o p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e
job o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , r a t h e r than e n d u r i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f the person, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l
f a c t o r i s d i s r e g a r d e d i n the t r e a t m e n t o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n t h i s and subsequent c h a p t e r s .
 10-32

i n f e r e n c e , he m i g h t be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as h a v i n g poor e g o - i n t e g r a t i o n , i . e . , e x c e s s i v e
i

and p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g m o t i v e s , i n a b i l i t y t o b i n d t e n s i o n , and inadequate

defenses and coping procedures.

The e m o t i o n a l l y ' s t a b l e person ( l o w on proneness t o n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y ) seems t o

be .cheerful., t h i n k - s k i n n e d and cool-headed i n p e r i o d s o f s t r e s s , n o n - i n t r o s p e c t i v e ,

a c t i v e , and o u t g o i n g . He may be w e l l i n t e g r a t e d and master o f h i s m o t i v e s and

o f h i s f a t e , b u t he may a l s o be u n d e m o t i v a t e d ( a p a t h e t i c ) , i n s e n s i t i v e and

u n i n s i g h t f u l , I m p u l s i v e and u n d e r c o n t r o l l e d . W h i l e we tend t o see t h e l o w end

o f t h e n e u r o t i c i s m dimension as a p p r o a c h i n g t h e h e r o i c i d e a l o f e m o t i o n a l m a t u r i t y

and personal competence, I t may be t h a t I t r e f l e c t s I n some cases tendencies

toward s c h i z o i d u n e m p t i o n a l l t y o r , i n o t h e r s , psychopathic d i s r e g a r d . That i s ,

w h i l e t h e e m o t i o n a l l y s t a b l e person i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as having p o s i t i v e

m e n t a l h e a l t h , one who scores a t t h a t end o f F a c t o r 1 m i g h t have tendencies

toward t h o s e d i s o r d e r s w h i c h do n o t i n v o l v e a n x i e t y and e m o t i o n a l i t y as m a j o r

symptoms. Chapter 11 d e a l s w i t h the e f f e c t s o f v a r i a t i o n s on t h i s dimension i n

determining t h e person's r e a c t i o n s t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y .

2. Favorable v s ; unfavorable self-regard. The second f a c t o r i s somewhat more

d i f f i c u l t t o interpret. Taken a t face v a l u e , t h i s would appear t o be a second

n e u r o t i c i s m o r e g o ^ i n t e g r a t i o n dimension b u t w i t h t h e p o l e s r e v e r s e d . * 1
One who i s

h i g h on t h i s dimension seems t o be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by e m o t i o n a l m a t u r i t y , s o c i a l ,

conscience, and i n t e g r a t i o n o r balance o f i n t e r n a l processes ( t h e competent,

c o n f i d e n t , s o l i d c i t i z e n ) , w h i l e t h e o p p o s i t e end seems t o r e p r e s e n t childish

i m p u i s i v i t y and s e l f i s h n e s s and perhaps t h e c o n f u s i o n and i n n e r t u r m o i l o f t h e

adolescent.

~
I n f a c t , a l l o f t h e p o s i t i v e l y l o a d i n g .scales w h i c h make up F a c t o r 2 load n e g a t i v e l y
( n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) on F a c t o r 1 , a n d " v i c e v e r s a ; t h e f i r s t two f a c t o r s
are n o t t r u l y orthogonal b u t r a t h e r are modestly c o r r e l a t e d i n the negative d i r e c t i o n .
 10-33

The prominence o f t h e l i e scale i n t h i s f a c t o r causes one t o doubt t h i s inter-

p r e t a t i o n - - ^ q u e s t i o n whether s u b s t a n t i a l d i s t o r t i o n m i g h t be i n v o l v e d p a r t i c u l a r l y

f o r one a t t h e h i g h end o f the s c a l e . A c c o r d i n g t o the m a n i f e s t c o n t e n t o f t h e

component s c a l e s , such persons ( h i g h s c o r e r s ) c e r t a i n l y have pronounced t e n d e n c i e s

toward f a v o r a b l e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n . They p o r t r a y themselves' ( i n t h e i r responses on

these s c a l e s ) as exemplary c i t i z e n s ' w i t h w e l l s o c i a l i z e d c o n t r o l over impulses,

s t r o n g r e g a r d f o r t h e w e l f a r e o f o t h e r s , and s t r e n g t h o f c h a r a c t e r - - i n s h o r t , a

modern, m i d d l e c l a s s Abraham L i n c o l n . There are,- no doubt, some people who have

these i d e a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and thus c o u l d h o n e s t l y respond p o s i t i v e l y on a l l

these s c a l e s , a d m i t t i n g no weakness o r f a u l t because they have none. I t seems

l i k e l y , however, t h a t t h i s f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t s t h e h a l o e f f e c t o f r a t i n g t h e s e l f

on a s e r i e s o f e v a l u a t i v e s c a l e s , t h e I m p l i c i t common dimension b e i n g social

desirability.

I f , as t h e presence o f t h e l i e scale suggests, those who score h i g h on t h i s

f a c t o r a r e r e f u s i n g t o admit weaknesses ( r a t h e r than a c t u a l l y b e i n g f r e e o f them),

the p o s i t i v e end m i g h t be b e t t e r c a l l e d " d e f e n s i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s e l f 1 1

than

" i n t e g r a t i o n and e m o t i o n a l m a t u r i t y . " The n e g a t i v e l o a d i n g s o f these s c a l e s on

t h e a n x i e t y f a c t o r suggests t h a t t h e f a v o r a b l e s e l f - d e s c r i b e r may be d i s t o r t i n g

h i s Image n o t o n l y t o t h e p u b l i c b u t t o h i m s e l f as w e l l . According t o t h i s view,

the b a s i c d i m e n s i o n would be s e l f - a g r a n d i z e m e n t vs. s e l f - h a t r e d o r l a c k o f s e l f -

esteem. ' 1
Or perhaps t h e l o w end r e p r e s e n t s ^a p e c u l i a r k i n d o f e x h i b i t i o n i s m

w h i c h t a k e s t h e form o f an urge t o d i s p l a y ones t r o u b l e s and c o n f e s s ones weaknesses"

(Goodenough, 1949, p. 4 0 8 ) .

The p r e s e n t data do n o t p e r m i t a c o n f i d e n t c h o i c e between these two b a s i c a l l y

different interpretations. They b o t h may be c o r r e c t b u t f o r d i f f e r e n t cases.

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f many s p e c i f i c items o n F a c t o r
2 t o those o f t h e MMPI K s c a l e . A c c o r d i n g t o Dahlstrom and Welsh ( 1 9 6 0 ) , " t h e
s u b j e c t g e t t i n g a h i g h score on K n o t o n l y d e n i e s p e r s o n a l inadequacies, t e n d e n c i e s
toward m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s , and any t r o u b l e i n c o n t r o l l i n g h i m s e l f , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
r e g a r d t o temper, b u t a l s o w i t h o l d s c r i t i c i s m o f o t h e r s / (p.51-52).
1
 10-34

That i s , some people m i g h t score h i g h on t h i s f a c t o r f o r reasons ( e . g . , d e f e n s i v e

self-enhancement) w h i c h a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t d y n a m i c a l l y from those o f o t h e r h i g h
s c o r e r s who t r u l y have *the ^ t r a i t s o f s e l f - c o n t r o l , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , e g o - s t r e n g t h ,
e t c . G i v e n these i n t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s and t h e f a c t t h a t e a r l y e x p l o r a t o r y
a n a l y s e s w i t h t h i s f a c t o r f a i l e d t o produce r e a d i l y m e a n i n g f u l p a t t e r n s o f r e s u l t s ,
no f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f v a r i a t i o n s on t h i s dimension i s
undertaken here.

3. F l e x i b i l i t y vs. r i g i d i t y . The predominant s c a l e as w e l l as o t h e r g e n e r a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f F a c t o r 3 i n d i c a t e s a g e n e r a l dimension o f f l e x i b i l i t y - r i g i d i t y .

A person o f t h e f l e x i b l e end i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a f r e e and easy openness t o

e x p e r i e n c e , a d a p t a b i l i t y i n t h e face o f changing c o n d i t i o n s , and responsiveness

toward o t h e r s . ' He i s p r o b a b l y f r e e o f any s t r o n g need t o o v e r l y - s t r u c t u r e o r

, i i •

r o u t i n i z e a c t i v i t i e s o r t o impose s t r i c t c r i t e r i a o f c o n s i s t e n c y on a t t i t u d e s and

beliefs. He a l s o tends n o t t o be o v e r l y j u d g m e n t a l about o t h e r s . While n o t

necessarily implying t h e l a c k o f i n t e r n a l i z e d standards, the presence o f l o w - w i l l

power i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above suggests t h a t t h i s f a c t o r may be I n t e r p r e t e d as

1
.' i
outer-directedness. Because,'of t h i s , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e h i g h l y flexible
/ -
*

i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be s e n s i t i v e t o and a c c e p t i n g o f r o l e p r e s s u r e s and t h a t generally

he w i l l s t r i v e t o conform t o t h e r o l e r e q u i r e m e n t s imposed on him by o t h e r s .

i J

In contrast, the. r i g i d p e r s o n i s more a p t t o be i n n e r - d i r e c t e d , perhaps

i r r e s p o n s i b l y so, t o be r e s i s t a n t t o i n f l u e n c e , and t o p r e f e r a n e a t and o r d e r l y

routine i n h i sdaily l i f e . T h i s may i m p l y an i n t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y and o f

r a p i d change. He i s l i k e l y t o be i n c o n s i d e r a t e o f o t h e r s ' needs, c r i t i c a l l y

j u d g m e n t a l o f t h e i r b e h a v i o r and i n t o l e r a n t o f t h e i r weaknesses. The presence

of neuroticism and p h y s i o l o g i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f anxiety suggests' t h a t t h e

r i g i d i t y m i g h t be d e f e n s i v e i n n a t u r e , t h a t h i s adherence t o s e t p a t t e r n s o f thought

and b e h a v i o r stems from a f e a r o f " r o c k i n g t h e b o a t . " Once l e a r n i n g t h e

 10-35

o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e g u l a t i o n s and norms, he I s l i k e l y t o s t i c k t o them t o the l e t t e r .

The r i g i d p e r s o n seems w e l l f i t t e d t o r o u t i n e and s y s t e m a t i c j o b s and t o those
r e q u i r i n g perseverehce, b u t n o t t o i n n o v a t i v e j o b s nor t o those r e q u i r i n g a g r e a t
deal of c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h a v a r i e t y of other r o l e s .

4. E x t r o v e r s i o n vs. i n t r o v e r s i o n . F a c t o r 4 seems t o be a combination of

s o c i a b i l i t y and surgency. The e x t r o v e r t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a c t i v e and out-

g o i n g ; o r i e n t e d toward t h i n g s and p r a c t i c a l a f f a i r s arid, w i t h a h i g h g e n e r a l

d r i v e l e v e l and a c h e e r f u l happy-go-lucky temperament, i s z e s t f u l l y i n v o l v e d i n

accomplishing t h i n g s i n the r e a l World. I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h i s , he e n j o y s social

a f f a i r s and the company o f o t h e r s and i s a s s e r t i v e , perhaps even a g g r e s s i v e , in

social a c t i v i t i e s . The I n t r o v e r t , on t h e o t h e r hand, t e n d s t o be q u i e t , shy and

withdrawn, a v o i d i n g prominence i n s o c i a l a f f a i r s . He tends toward introspectiveness

and t h o u g h t f u l n e s s and i n v e s t s h i m s e l f more I n the w o r l d o f ideas t h a n i n

p r a c t i c a l day-to-day a f f a i r s . The presence o f n e u r o t i c i s m suggests an i n n e r t e n s i o n

and l a c k o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e which may account f o r h i s l a c k o f energy and general

disengagement from e x t e r n a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y s o c i a l a f f a i r s .

The appearance o f C a t t e l l s I n t e l l i g e n c e f a c t o r on F a c t o r 4 i s somewhat

1

problematical. We a r e tempted t o i n t e r p r e t the low i n t e l l i g e n c e i n such a way

as t o round o u t the p o r t r a i t o f t h e s u r g e n t e x t r o v e r t as a "male a n i m a l : 11

full

o f energy, g r e g a r i o u s , a m b i t i o u s , b a c k - s l a p p i n g l y a g g r e s s i v e , and conventional,

whose l a c k o f a n x i e t y i s p a r t i a l l y a f u n c t i o n o f h i s not b e i n g t o o b r i g h t . However,

i t seems e q u a l l y l i k e l y t h a t the low score on Cat t e l l s i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e c o u l d

1

have r e s u l t e d from the s u r g e n t e x t r o v e r t ' s t e s t - t a k i n g i m p a t i e n c e and the introvert's

preference f o r i n t e l l e c t u a l tasks.

Three o f t h e f o u r C a t t e l l s c a l e s , w h i c h l o a d on t h i s factor—surgency,

parmia, and c y c l o t h y m i a - - a r e m a j o r components o f t h e second o r d e r f a c t o r he calls

extroversion-introversion, t h e presence o f t h e B e r n r e u t e r s o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n
 10-36

( s o l i t a r i n e s s ) s c a l e and the need f o r independence measure f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t e t o

t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The s o c i a b i l i t y aspect o f t h i s d i m e n s i o n r e f l e c t s the
e x t r o v e r t ' s a f f i l i a t i o n o r i e n t a t i o n and the i n t r o v e r t ' s c o n c e r n w i t h autonomy. T h i s
f a c t o r has o b v i o u s r e l e v a n c e f o r the i n t e r p e r s o n a l aspects o f r o l e systems. A
more complete t r e a t m e n t o f i t i s g i v e n i n Chapter 12.

5. Aggressive independence vs. g e n i a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s . The person who scores

h i g h on F a c t o r 5 p r e s e n t s a p i c t u r e w h i c h i s q u i t e congruent w i t h the traditional

c o n c e p t i o n o f the a g g r e s s i v e psychopath: under-socialized, lacking i n strongly

i n t e r n a l i z e d e t h i c a l o r c i v i c standards (low r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) , suspicious of o t h e r s

and a tendency toward l o c a l i z i n g blame i n o t h e r people and i n h i s background

( p a r a n o i d t r e n d , unhappy c h i l d h o o d ) , and a somewhat l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y f o r p o s i t i v e

a f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s w i t h others (schizothymia, intolerance).

The t e r m independence i n the f a c t o r name r e f l e c t s not the shy, withdrawn

s o l i t a r i n e s s o f the i n t r o v e r t b u t r a t h e r a s e l f i s h l a c k o f concern f o r o t h e r s , a

tendency t o go h i s own way i n s p i t e o f o t h e r s ' needs o r w i s h e s . Hostility or

a g g r e s s i v e n e s s i s prominent i n the p r o t e n s i o n measure.

The r e l a t i v e absence o f g u i l t and m a n i f e s t a n x i e t y t y p i c a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o

j

the p s y c h o p a t h i s i n d i c a t e d i n a n e g a t i v e sense by the f a c t t h a t , o f the five

f a c t o r s w h i c h compose the C a t t e l l a n x i e t y s c a l e , o n l y p a r a n o i d t r e n d loads h i g h l y

on F a c t o r 5. The s a l i e n c e o f schizothymia i s i n t e r p r e t e d , n o t as evidence o f

withdrawal from i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , b u t r a t h e r , i n i t s connotation o f

constricted affective responsivtty.

I n c o n t r a s t , one who scores low on F a c t o r 5 seems t o be a g r e e a b l e , light-

h e a r t e d , c o o p e r a t i v e , f r i e n d l y , and r e s p o n s i b l y r e a l i s t i c about h i m s e l f and o t h e r s .

M o t i v e s , Values, and I d e n t i t y Variables°-Assessment from I n t e r v i e w P r o t o c o l s .

The factor analysis of objective test t r a i t scales gives a g r e a t deal of i n f o r m a t i o n

 10-37

about i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a l o n g m a j o r dimensions o f p e r s o n a l i t y = As w i l l be

seen i n the c h a p t e r s which f o l l o w , they shed new l i g h t on ways t h a t p e r s o n a l

p r o p e r t i e s I n f l u e n c e the person's r e a c t i o n s t o r o l e induced s t r e s s . However, except

by i n f e r e n c e , they g i v e l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c m o t i v e s and v a l u e s which

m i g h t be o p e r a n t i n t h e j o b s i t u a t i o n - - w h a t g o a l s o r a s p i r a t i o n s does the

i n d i v i d u a l t r y t o o b t a i n o r maximize, what i n t e r n a l v a l u e s o r standards does he

use i n e v a l u a t i n g h i s own o r o t h e r s 9
behavior. Nor do t h e t r a i t s c a l e s g i v e

d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n about s e l f - i d e n t i t y and t h e involvement o f s e l f i n v a r i o u s

a p s e c t s o f ones p o s i t i o n , r o l e c l u s t e r , o r o r g a n i z a t i o n . Yet, such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

a r e o b v i o u s l y p e r t i n e n t t o the. person's b e h a v i o r on the j o b , i n p a r t i c u l a r , they

a r e r e l e v a n t t o h i s response t o r o l e p r e s s u r e s o f v a r i o u s k i n d s .

The l o n g , i n t e n s i v e second i n t e r v i e w w i t h each o f t h e f o c a l persons was

designed t o g i v e such i n f o r m a t i o n . A l o o s e o u t l i n e o f open-ended q u e s t i o n s was

used t o s t i m u l a t e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s k i n d o f m a t e r i a l . Each q u e s t i o n was f o l l o w e d

up by a s e r i e s o f probes i n t e n d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e the respondent's presentation of

a comprehensive, d e t a i l e d , and w e l l - r o u n d e d s k e t c h o f h i s a t t i t u d e s , f e e l i n g s and

e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o f i v e aspects o f h i s l i f e a t work:

1) Sources o f s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e j o b ; i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f

s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f the j o b which make him e v a l u a t e i t p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y .

T h i s t y p i c a l l y p r o v i d e d a w e a l t h o f i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s p e r s o n a l needs and

v a l u e s w h i c h are p a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t on the j o b .

2) Conditions o f person-role f i t ; c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f (a) v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l

p r o p e r t i e s ( t a l e n t s , s k i l l s , knowledge, c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s , e t c . ) which the

respondent f e e l s are i m p o r t a n t f o r p e r f o r m i n g h i s p a r t i c u l a r j o b , (b) h i s e v a l u a t i o n

o f h i m s e l f r e g a r d i n g these p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t i e s , and ( c ) h i s g e n e r a l assessment o f

the s u i t a b i l i t y o r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i s

role. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n f r e q u e n t l y produced s i g n i f i c a n t m a t e r i a l about self-identity

structure, s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and self-esteem.

 10-38

3) Long range career h i s t o r y and a s p i r a t i o n s ; d e t a i l e d accounting o f the

sequence o f jobs the person has held since completing h i s education, i n c l u d i n g a

consideration o f reasons f o r major employment or career changes, and a prolonged

discussion of past and present career a s p i r a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n to information

about personal ambitions and a s p i r a t i o n s , t h i s usually provided i n d i c a t i o n s o f

f e e l i n g s o f success or f a i l u r e , j o b involvement or apathy, self-confidence, and

the l i k e .

4) Sources o f stress on the job; discussion o f conditions or events which

. 'i

the person-sees as s t r e s s f u l or leading t o tension, and the nature o f h i s

a f f e c t i v e states when confronted w i t h stress. This Included a detailed

d e s c r i p t i o n o f a " t y p i c a l bad day" on the job and, where he could recount i t , a

d e s c r i p t i o n of a major stress episode i n his recent work l i f e . This provided

i n f o r m a t i o n about s p e c i f i c environmental circumstances which are s t r e s s f u l , but i t

also i n d i c a t e d areas o f special s e n s i t i v i t y o r concern i n the I n d i v i d u a l -

5) Techniques for coping w i t h stress; f o l l o w i n g from and, i n some respects,

merged w i t h the discussion o f sources of stress, a series o f intensive probes were

used to e l i c i t information about t a c t i c s or behaviors he uses to cope w i t h the

stress or t o handle i t s emotional consequences.

This depth interview m a t e r i a l i s used i n two ways i n the analysis. First, i t

provides a more complete basis f o r d e t a i l e d case analyses. L i b e r a l use has been

made i n e a r l i e r chapters o f quotes from these interviews. Chapter 14 presents

more comprehensive analyses o f s i x cases, suggesting new i n s i g h t s i n t o the

dynamics o f reactions t o c o n f l i c t .

Second, a comprehensive content analysis of the interview protocols permitted

the coding o f several q u a n t i t a t i v e or dichotomous variables which can be used i n

s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. For some variables, where inference or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

seemed to be e s s e n t i a l to r e f l e c t an underlying dimension, the q u a n t i f i c a t i o n was

 10-39

obtained v i a judgments by coders on nine-point r a t i n g scales. I n t h i s case, coders

who were t r a i n e d and experienced i n c l i n i c a l psychology and personality theory were

used.

Detailed d e s c r i p t i o n s of these v a r i a b l e s w i l l not be given here; they are

presented, r a t h e r , a t the point ( i n various chapters) where they are f i r s t

introduced and. discussed. Three of them--self-confidence, sense of f u t i l i t y (vs.

personal e f f e c t i v e n e s s ) , and apathy (vs. involvement)--are used p r i m a r i l y as

dependent v a r i a b l e s and have shown up i n previous chapters. Those dealing w i t h

major m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s are presented i n subsequent chapters.

i

Looking ahead. The primary purpose of t h i s chapter has been t o lay the

conceptual and methodological groundwork f o r the use of personality v a r i a b l e s i n

the a n a l y s i s of the consequences o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity. Subsequent

chapters delve i n t o the Implications o f s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y factors. The dynamics

of adjustment to these s t r e s s f u l conditions d i f f e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways when various

p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e s are considered.
 CHAPTER 11

NEUROTIC ANXIETY AND EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY TO STRESS

The concepts of anxiety and neuroticism have held a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n i n

personality theory since the t u r n of the century. Much of Freud's work, s t a r t i n g

i n the 1890 "s, focused heavily on the character s t r u c t u r e o f patients s u f f e r i n g

from various neuroses. Proneness t o anxiety and emotional i n s t a b i l i t y was noted

early. We are concerned here w i t h a c l u s t e r o f personality t r a i t s - ~ c a l l e d

neuroticism by Eysenck (1960) and others and anxiety by C a t t e l l , (1957)--which

r e f l e c t a s e n s i t i v i t y to stress and an i n a b i l i t y to cope w i t h stress e f f e c t i v e l y .

i

I t i s assumed t h a t t h i s c l u s t e r represents a dimension or continuum w i t h emotional

s t a b i l i t y and w e l l integrated thought and behavior patterns a t one extreme and

w i t h anxiety, inner t u r m o i l , m o t i v a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t , and d i s i n t e g r a t i o n at the

other. Personality Factor 1, Neurotic Anxiety vs. Emotional S t a b i l i t y r e f l e c t s

such a dimension. While a d e t a i l e d treatment o f the neurotic personality would

carry us w e l l beyond the scope o f the present study, a review of some o f i t s major

properties i s i n order.

1- Excessive and c o n f l i c t i n g motivations. I n the psychoanalytic literature,

empahsis i s placed on I n t e r n a l ( o f t e n unconscious) m o t i v a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s as

determinants o f anxiety and neurotic reactions, p a r t i c u l a r l y on c o n f l i c t s between

sexual d r i v e s ( i d pressures) and excessively strong moral p r o h i b l t o r s (superego

demands). More r e c e n t l y , I t has become apparent t h a t u n r e a l i s t i c excesses I n

other motives may also be important f a c t o r s , e.g., achievement a s p i r a t i o n s ,

dependency needs,, power and status motives and the l i k e . Tensions associcated with

. f r u s t r a t e d o r inadequately s a t i s f i e d motives c o n s t i t u t e a major component o f

neurotic a n x i e t y .

2. E m o t i o n a l i t y and i n s t a b i l i t y . I n a d d i t i o n to the l i k e l i h o o d o f frequent

anxiety a t t a c k s , the neurotic tends to experience a wide v a r i e t y of emotional s t a t e s -

shame, g u i l t , depression, anger, fear, as w e l l as the more pleasant emotions o f

 11-2

e l a t i o n , j o y , pride, a f f e c t i o n , etc. He i s frequently impatient, j i t t e r y ,

i r r i t a b l e , sometimes grouchy and short-tempered. Moreover, such states are apt to

change r a p i d l y and sometimes without apparent cause. While not a l l neurotics

demonstrate t h i s f u l l , spectrum of a f f e c t i v e states, t h e i r emotions tend to be more

e r r a t i c , less w e l l under c o n t r o l , and generally more unpleasant. More important

for our purposes, less s t r e s s f u l s t i m u l i are required to evoke an unpleasant

•i

emotional response.

3. Inadequate coping procedures. Added t o the strong demands of I n t e r n a l

motives i s a lack of a b i l i t y to express a v a i l a b l e emotional and m o t i v a t i o n a l

energy along i n t e g r a t i v e channels, a lack of e f f e c t i v e channels f o r need

gratification. Responses tend to be impulsive rather than planned; the neurotic

lacks perseverance, will-power, and the a b i l i t y to "bind" tensions. ' I n place of

more e f f e c t i v e and . c u l t u r a l l y preferred expressions of motivational.energy, he

frequently uses any of a v a r i e t y of defense mechanisms to cope w i t h h i s tensions--

d e n i a l , repression, regression, p r o j e c t i o n , turning-against-the-self, etc. For

these reasons,' the neurotic may be said to have a weak ego or to lack ego-strength.

4. Low self-esteem and excessive concern w i t h personal weaknesses. A l l of

the above--the f r u s t r a t e d needs, the i n e f f e c t i v e coping mechnaisms, and the

emotional s t r a i n s - ^ e x a c t t h e i r costs both p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y and psychologically.

I n a t t e n t i o n and disrupted thought processes, disturbed sleep, and increased

v i s c e r a l a c t i v i t y ( r e s u l t i n g from autonomic concomitants of the emotional states)

lead to frequent f e e l i n g s of f a i l u r e and to a general lack of health and energy.

In the face o f a l l t h i s , there i s perhaps l i t t l e wonder t h a t the neurotic holds

himself i n low regard and i s more attuned to h i s l i m i t a t i o n s and weaknesses than

to h i s strengths and competences. He tends to be s e l f - o r i e n t e d , perhaps

defensively conceited, but more l i k e l y burdened w i t h self-doubts and recriminations.

. This- b r i e f c a r i c a t u r e of the neurotic represents the extreme of the continuum

w i t h which we are concerned. I t i s assumed t h a t each of the four general properties

 11-3

discussed above can best be conceptualized i n dimensional terms and that most of us

l i e n e i t h e r on t h i s extreme end nor on the opposite end ( i . e . , (1) moderately, w e l l

integrated motives, seldom i n c o n f l i c t , (2) emotional s t a b i l i t y and moderation, (3)

high ego-strength and coping procedures, and (4) high self-esteem).

These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of neuroticism are evident i n the components of the

neurotic a n x i e t y f a c t o r : (1) free f l o a t i n g anxiety or g u i l t proneness, (2) inner

c o n f l i c t and tension or d r i v e tension, (3) l a s s i t u d e malaise, (4) Q3 lack of

will-power o r i n t e g r a t i o n of self-sentiment, (5) Bernreuter neuroticism, (6)

p h y s i o l o g i c a l manifestations of anxiety and (7) desurgency or lack of energetic

activity. The t o t a l IPAT Anxiety Test, which has been w e l l standardized and

v a l i d a t e d and c o r r e l a t e s .90 w i t h this' f a c t o r , i s used f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l

analyses presented i n t h i s chapter. While a wide range;of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s

on t h i s measure i s found i n our sample of f o c a l persons, only two of them score

high enough t o suspect t h a t they might be s u f f e r i n g from an a c t i v e neurosis. * 1

We w i l l r e t u r n to a consideration of those cases below. I n the analysis to be

presented, now we are dealing f o r the most part w i t h i n d i v i d u a l differences w e l l

w i t h i n the normal range; the sample of focal persons has been divided a t the

median i n t o h i g h vs. low neurotic anxiety.

Neurotic Anxiety and the Experience of C o n f l i c t . The concept of neuroticism

implies a heightened s e n s i t i v i t y to s t r e s s f u l environmental conditions, a low

degree of s t r e s s tolerance. We have already noted a p o s i t i v e association between

degree of o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t and the i n t e n s i t y of psychological c o n f l i c t

experienced by the f o c a l person. There I s also a tendency f o r those who are high

^'Neurosis as a general category of p s y c h i a t r i c diagnosis includes several v a r i e t i e s

ranging from dysthymic reactions (anxiety states, reactive depressions, obsessions)
to h y s t e r i c a l conversion reactions'. This questionnaire measure of neuroticism i s
probably more s e n s i t i v e t o the dysthymic manifestations than to the h y s t e r i c ; i n
advanced cases of conversion hysteria the person may be r e l a t i v e l y unaware of
e i t h e r i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t or anxiety. Thus, the measure i s perhaps best i n t e r p r e t e d
as proneness t o anxiety neuroses.
 11-4

on neurotic anxiety t o experience more intense c o n f l i c t than do those who are more

stable and I n t e g r a t e d ,

But Table 11-1 suggests that the s i t u a t i o n may not be so simple as t h i s . In

f a c t , no d i f f e r e n c e i n psychological c o n f l i c t i s found between high and low r o l e

c o n f l i c t i n the low anxiety group. I n contrast, those who are high on neurotic

anxiety experience l i t t l e I n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t when o b j e c t i v e role c o n f l i c t s are

absent but very intense I n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t when they are present. Ten out o f the

12 high a n x i e t y subjects who are faced w i t h strong r o l e c o n f l i c t s discuss a t some

length the k i n d s o f psychological c o n f l i c t s they experience and report them t o be

r e l a t i v e l y severe. Less than a quarter o f the subjects i n any o f the other three

conditions discuss discernable c o n f l i c t s a t all«

A d i s t i n c t i o n needs to be drawn between the perception o f objective role

c o n f l i c t and the experience o f i n t e r n a l or psychological c o n f l i c t s . The l a t t e r

concept i s defined i n terms o f the opposition o f psychological forces on the person,

i . e . , o f aroused m o t i v a t i o n a l tendencies i n the p e r s o n — i n c o n s i s t e n t or

c o n t r a d i c t o r y needs or values which are aroused I n or s a l i e n t to a given s i t u a t i o n

at a p a r t i c u l a r point i n time.

Now, sent r o l e pressures are e f f e c t i v e , o f course, to the extent that they

create intended psychological forces i n the person, that i s , to the extent t h a t

they s t i m u l a t e h i s m o t i v a t i o n to conform t o the corresponding r o l e expectations.

Therefore, c o n f l i c t i n g pressures, i f e f f e c t i v e , should lead t o m o t i v a t i o n a l

conflicts. However, r o l e pressures do not always e l i c i t the intended psychological

forces. I n f a c t , as I s indicated i n the table, a w e l l Integrated person must be

able to r e s i s t those pressures which place him I n c o n f l i c t .

This does not Imply that one low on anxiety f a i l s to perceive or i s unaware

o f the expectations o f those around him. On the contrary, responses i n the low

anxiety group are tantemount t o , "Oh yes, I know what he wants me to do, but t h a t ' s

not what I need to do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . " That i s , they are able t o accept or rejec
 11-5

influence s e l e c t i v e l y and r e a l i s t i c a l l y . Those high on neurotic anxiety, on the

other hand, seem t o be less able t o close out pressures from others when they are
•»

i n c o n f l i c t w i t h other forces operating on them.

Not o n l y do r o l e pressures sometimes f a i l to e l i c i t intended e f f e c t s , they

also o f t e n produce unintended psychological forces. A m i l d c r i t i c i s m from a

superior, intended t o correct a minor f a u l t , may be i n t e r p r e t e d by a hypersensitive

f o c a l person as an i n d i c a t i o n o f a major lack o f confidence or even as evidence o f

strong h o s t i l i t y . The objective c o n f l i c t thus may be mlspercelved t o a s u b s t a n t i a l

degree. The m o t i v a t i o n a l r e s u l t may be the c r e a t i o n o f forces t o c o r r e c t the f a u l t ,

but they are apt t o be grossly exaggerated, o u t o f a l l proportion t o the desired

change. They also may be s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n d i r e c t i o n , e.g., towards

c o u n t e r - h o s t i l i t y and stubborn (but disguised) non-conformity. The severe

psychological c o n f l i c t s of the neurotic ( i . e . , those above the median on

neurotic a n x i e t y ) who i s faced w i t h r o l e c o n f l i c t may involve such unintended as

w e l l as the intended m o t i v a t i o n a l e f f e c t s o f sent r o l e pressures. I t i s interesting

to note t h a t , a t l e a s t i n t h i s sample, neurotics who are r e l a t i v e l y free o f r o l e

c o n f l i c t seem t o experience (or a t l e a s t r e p o r t ) very l i t t l e inner c o n f l i c t .

I n s e r t Table 11-1 about here

Job Tension and S a t i s f a c t i o n . The perception o f and ones w i l l i n g n e s s t o

discuss psychological c o n f l i c t may not r e f l e c t p e r f e c t l y the emotional experience

\ . . .
generated by the c o n f l i c t . Table 11-2 presents the mean degrees o f tension and j o b

s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r high and low anxiety subjects under high and low degrees o f r o l e

conflict. Both o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t and neuroticism c o n t r i b u t e t o tensions

and undermine s a t i s f a c t i o n s on the j o b . While the differences among the c e l l s are

not extremely large, the .two independent v a r i a b l e s apparently combine a d d i t i v e l y .

Thus, the h i g h anxiety persons under r o l e c o n f l i c t s u f f e r severe tensions and l i t t l e

 11-6

Table 11-1

The E f f e c t s of Role C o n f l i c t and Neurotic Anxiety on

Mean I n t e n s i t y of Experienced (Psychological) C o n f l i c t . * *

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

High Low _P_ Total

High 4.67 .91 <.001 2.87

Low 1.85 2.09 n. s. 1.38

Neurotic
Anxiety £ <01 n. s. <.05 .

Total 3.20 1.50 <-05

" I n t e n s i t y o f experienced c o n f l i c t i s based on an i n f e r e n t i a l coding of the

1 1

degree of c o n f l i c t i n motives or psychological forces evidenced i n various parts

of the i n t e n s i v e second i n t e r v i e w w i t h each f o c a l person. A nine-point r a t i n g
scale, ranging from "no discernable c o n f l i c t " to "very intense c o n f l i c t , " was
used by the c l i n i c i a n who served as the coder.
 11-7

s a t i s f a c t i o n while those who are low on both o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t and anxiety

proneness experience l i t t l e tension and enjoy a high degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n on the

job. Those who are high on anxiety and faced w i t h l i t t l e c o n f l i c t or low on

anxiety and faced w i t h strong c o n f l i c t r e p o r t moderate degrees o f tension and

s a t i s f a c t i o n on the job.

I n s e r t Table 11-2 about here

When Table l l - 2 a i s broken down even f u r t h e r i n terms o f degree o f r o l e

c o n f l i c t , i t becomes apparent that neuroticism adds an increment o f tension a t

every l e v e l o f role c o n f l i c t . This i s q u i t e consistent w i t h the conception o f

neuroticism as i n v o l v i n g i n t e r n a l sources o f stress which might add t o the e f f e c t s

of e x t e r n a l stresses. I t i s also consistent w i t h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f neuroticism

as i n v o l v i n g emotional s e n s i t i v i t y or v u l n e r a b i l i t y to s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s .

Sense o f Effectiveness vs. F u t i l i t y . When conditions become s u f f i c i e n t l y

s t r e s s f u l , the person's tensions and a n x i e t i e s may i n t e r f e r e w i t h h i s effectiveness.

His energies and thought processes may be bound up i n e f f o r t s t o cope w i t h the

discomforts o f h i s emotional response, reducing h i s a b i l i t y t o cope w i t h the

o b j e c t i v e sources o f the stress. As a r e s u l t , he i s apt t o t u r n h i s thoughts

inward, to become concerned about h i s health, h i s lack o f energy and d r i v e , and

his i n a b i l i t y t o perform as e f f e c t i v e l y and productively as he would l i k e t o . He

may become more f e a r f u l o f possible f a i l u r e s and less hopeful f o r favorable out-

comes. I n the absence o f e f f e c t i v e measures f o r dealing w i t h stress and tensions,

ones perception o f s e l f as an a c t i v e and e f f e c t i v e agent, capable o f c o n t r o l l i n g

his own f a t e , may be r a t h e r e a s i l y undermined. I n short, he may manifest a sense

of f u t i l i t y .

I n s e r t Table 11-3 about here

 11-8

Table 11-2

The E f f e c t s o f Role C o n f l i c t and Neurotic Anxiety

on Mean Tension and Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .

MEAN TENSION

Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

High Low Total

High 5.62 4.45 5.08

Low 4.45 3.50 4.00

Neurotic
Anxie t y £ <.01

Total 5.04 3.96 <.05

MEAN JOB SATISFACTION

High 3.85 5.00 <.01 4.38

Neurotic
Anxiety Low 4.62 5.25 4.92

Total 4.23 5,13 <.01

Table 11-3

The E f f e c t s o f Role C o n f l i c t and Neurotic Anxiety

on Mean Sense of F u t i l i t y

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

High Low Total

High 5.33 5.00 5.18

Neurotic Low 4.17 3.08 3.27

Anxie t y
Total 4.75 3.96
 11-9

From the second i n t e r v i e w w i t h each o f the f o c a l persons, i t was possible t o

judge (on a nine-point r a t i n g scale) the extent t o which the person demonstrated a

sense of f u t i l i t y , a f e e l i n g o f lack o f personal effectiveness. The r e s u l t s of

these r a t i n g s are presented i n Table 11-3. The r e s u l t s here are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t

than those i n the f i r s t two tables. Neurotics c l e a r l y demonstrate greater f u t i l i t y

than non-neurotics, perhaps because o f the r e l a t i v e inadequacy o f modes or channels

for g r a t i f i c a t i o n and ineffectiveness of coping mechanisms.

Non-neurotics, e s p e c i a l l y those i n c o n f l i c t - f r e e r o l e s , tend t o f e e l q u i t e

e f f e c t i v e i n t h e i r jobs; that i s , they feel, perhaps r e f l e c t i n g higher self-confidence

t h a t t h e i r behavior makes a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the way things t u r n out.

But t h i s sense of potency, of mastery over the s i t u a t i o n , i s undercut by c o n f l i c t i n g

r o l e pressures; under c o n f l i c t , a sense of f u t i l i t y creeps i n . This may be q u i t e

r e a l i s t i c , o f course. I f environmental pressures are i n f a c t mutually

c o n t r a d i c t o r y , the person may be able t o handle only some o f them e f f e c t i v e l y .

Some o f the f a c t o r s which a f f e c t h i s l i f e may be quite beyond h i s c o n t r o l . I f the

o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t i s p r i m a r i l y between i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l factors ( i . e . ,

person-role c o n f l i c t ) , the costs of denying e i t h e r may be greater than he can

r e a d i l y bear--effectlveness i n personal g r a t i f i c a t i o n may lead to punishment or

o s t r i c i s m f o r non-conformity to r o l e pressures, but e f f e c t i v e conformity may lead

t o personal f r u s t r a t i o n . Hence, f u t i l i t y feelings.

This reasoning should be expected t o hold f o r those who score high on

neurotic a n x i e t y as w e l l as f o r those who score low. But the presence of o b j e c t i v e

c o n f l i c t would appear (from Table 11-3) not t o increase very much the already high

l e v e l o f f u t i l i t y o f the neurotic. Apparently, however, the small d i f f e r e n c e o f

mean f u t i l i t y between neurotics under high and low c o n f l i c t I s a s t a t i s t i c a l a r t i f a c t

Under the more s t r e s s f u l c o n d i t i o n , the anxiety-prone person i s apt to r e s o r t to'

more d r a s t i c defenses, e.g., denial, d i s t o r t i o n s i n self-perception, etc. In

f a c t , many o f the high c o n f l i c t neurotics show a very high l e v e l of f u t i l i t y , they

 11-10

f e e l h e l p l e s s and hopeless i n a threatening ,and capricious world. Others, however,

.1 "
show no signs o f f u t i l i t y ; to the contrary, they emphatically assert that t h e i r

own personal competence or the p r o p i t i o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a benevolent superior

(each o f which might be questioned) w i l l p u l l them, out of t h e i r current bind and

carry them i n good stead. I f t h i s smacks of w h i s t l i n g i n the dark, i t may be the

only defense l e f t to the h i g h l y c o n f l i c t e d , dependent, t e n s i o n - r i d d l e d person

prone t o n e u r o t i c anxiety^ (More i s said of the dependency aspect below).

Once again we f i n d some evidence o f r o l e c o n f l i c t s and neuroticism combining

i n an a d d i t i v e way, each adding an increment t o the degree of f u t i l i t y manifested

by the subject. I n t h i s case, however, neuroticism seems t o create a more marked

d i f f e r e n c e than does o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t . Evidence f o r the l a t t e r appears

s t a t i s t i c a l l y only f o r non-neurotics. The neurotic's higher f u t i l i t y probably i s

due t o the Involvement of I n t e r n a l l y produced tensions and t o h i s less adequate

modes o f g r a t i f i c a t i o n . Apparently f o r the n e u r o t i c , normal, n o n - d l s t o r t l v e coping

techniques are l a c k i n g , but defense mechanisms which are less reality-bound may

reduce h i s f e e l i n g s o f f u t i l i t y . '
i

Neuroticism and A f f e c t i v e Interpersonal Bonds. A r e a l i s t i c adjustment t o

i i

s o c i a l l i f e requires, according t o Erikson (1950), an a b i l i t y to maintain close,

intimate r e l a t i o n s w i t h others but also an a b i l i t y to hold oneself a t a distance

from them. That I s , one needs an a b i l i t y to choose between Independence and

Intimacy, t o have close personal t i e s w i t h others when t h i s i s g r a t i f y i n g and

meaningful b u t t o avoid c l i n g i n g dependencies and loss of " i n d i v i d u a t i o n . " • As can

be seen i n Table l l = 4 j t h i s a b i l i t y i s associated w i t h emotional s t a b i l i t y and ego-

i n t e g r a t i o n , i . e . , w i t h the lack of neurotic anxiety.

I n s e r t Table 11-4 about here

i

Those who tend toward emotional s t a b i l i t y have strong, close r e l a t i o n s o f

 Table 11-4

The E f f e c t s o f Role C o n f l i c t and Neurotic Anxiety on

Mean Strength o f A f f e c t i v e Interpersonal Bonds

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

High Low Total

High 30.92 33.36 n. s. 32.04

Neurotic
Anxiety Low 22.38 40.75 <.001 31.20

Total 26.65 37.22 <.001

 11-12

t r u s t , respect and l i k i n g f o r t h e i r associates when i n a c o n f l i c t - f r e e environment;

these r e l a t i o n s seem to be seriously undermined when the environment poses- strong

c o n f l i c t s * T h i s appears t o r e f l e c t a r e j e c t i o n o f o r withdrawal from those who

are c r e a t i n g the stress. Those who are high on neuroticism f a i l t o a t t a i n i n a

benign environment the intimacy which characterizes t h e i r more integrated counter-

parts, b u t they also f a i l t o achieve the separation from t h e i r associates when

the l a t t e r pose c o n f l i c t s f o r them.

This f i n d i n g represents a pathetic dilemma. The n e u r o t i c , who. suffers a

great deal under stress, i s . r e l a t i v e l y unable t o cut h i s t i e s w i t h those who

create the stress. This stems, f o r the most part,,from the strong dependency

needs o f t h e neurotic. Because o f i n t e r n a l weaknesses and emotional v u l n e r a b i l i t y ,

he needs almost constant support from others. His immobility and indecisiveness

when under c o n f l i c t frequently cause: him to t u r n t o others f o r d i r e c t i o n .

Unfortunately, the neurotic a l l too o f t e n lacks the i n s i g h t and s k i l l s f o r

r e a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n and mutually g r a t i f y i n g interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . His

excessive demands f o r support from others o f t e n c o n s t r i c t s t h e i r area of f r e e -

movement t o the p o i n t of taxing not only t h e i r autonomy but also t h e i r tolerance

and patience. And t u r n i n g to others f o r d i r e c t i o n o f t e n i s an i n v i t a t i o n t o

exacerbation o f the c o n f l i c t ; even on i n s t i g a t i o n from the person, the a d d i t i o n

of new d i r e c t i v e s may f u r t h e r complicate a s i t u a t i o n which i s already too

complicated f o r him to handle. Dependency, a t t h i s l e v e l , i s both paradoxical

and s e l f - d e f e a t i n g — t h e neurotic cannot get along without others, but he cannot

get along v e r y w e l l w i t h them e i t h e r .

T.
I t should be noted that extreme degrees o f intimacy are seldom found i n Industry,
at l e a s t according t o our present s t a t e o f knowledge; close personal f r i e n d s h i p s
among work-mates tend t o be marked exceptions t o the general r u l e . Index scores
I n the 35 t o 45 range are best i n t e r p r e t e d as " c o r d i a l , congenial, t r u s t i n g ,
respecting, understanding." Lower scores, which are common, r e f l e c t interpersonal
d e f i c i e n c i e s , but there are few who score higher.
 11-13
From the "organization's" point of view, the neurotic response i n t h i s case may
seem to be the preferred one. To the extent t h a t the members of an organizational
u n i t are f u n c t i o n a l l y interdependent and coordination among t h e i r behaviors i s
required, a break-down i n interpersonal r e l a t i o n s i s l i k e l y to be malfunctional.
Were i t not f o r the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y and effectiveness would be
seriously c u r t a i l e d , the neurotic might seem t o be w e l l chosen f o r s t r e s s f u l
jobs. However as has j u s t been said, i t i s q u i t e l i k e l y that r e l a t i o n s f o r the
neurotic under stress have more of the f l a v o r o f dependency and lack of
i n i t i a t i v e than of active coordination,, They tend to be close i n seeking support
but not i n g i v i n g support to others.

I m p l i c a t i o n s of Neurotic and Non-neurotic Reactions.

The p a t t e r n of emotional reactions to r o l e c o n f l i c t , evidenced i n the data

reported above, i s impressively p e r s i s t e n t . The objective c o n f l i c t and the

neurotic ( a n x i e t y prone) p r e d i s p o s i t i o n combine a d d i t i v e l y i n producing negative

emotional s t a t e s . I f only the extreme q u a r t i l e s of each of these variables are

considered, the p a t t e r n i s even more dramatic. Figure 11-1 presents the average

p r o f i l e across several relevant variables of four groups: 1) those who are i n

the top q u a r t i l e on both neurotic anxiety and degree of r o l e c o n f l i c t , 2) those

i n the bottom q u a r t i l e on both v a r i a b l e s , and 3) and 4) those i n the top q u a r t i l e

on one but the bottom q u a r t i l e on the other. Clearly the neurotics under very

high c o n f l i c t cope l e a s t successfully and s u f f e r the most, while those who are most

stable emotionally and enjoy c o n f l i c t - f r e e r o l e s cope w e l l and s u f f e r l i t t l e . The

two groups i n which neuroticism and r o l e c o n f l i c t contrast (high-low, low-high)

are intermediate on a l l o f these v a r i a b l e s . The emotional reaction of neurotics,

at any g i v e n l e v e l of c o n f l i c t , is. more intense than i s that of persons who are

r e l a t i v e l y imune .to neurotic anxiety. Nonetheless, f o r neurotic and non-neurotic

a l i k e , environmental stress leads to increases i n tension, d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , a

sense of f u t i l i t y , and the l i k e .

 11-14

I n s e r t Figure 11-1" about here

Neuroticism and productive work. I t would be a mistake, however, to conclude

from a l l t h i s that , those who are prone t o neurotic anxiety are undesirable
i

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members',, The p i c t u r e drawn above i s rather black, pointing , t o the

neurotic s s e n s i t i v i t i e s , inadequacies, and maladaptive response patterns. This

c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of neuroticism i s one-sided, f o r we are concerned here w i t h the

emotional costs o f r o l e Undueed stress, and these costs are apparently excessive
i

for people high on t h i s dimension.

But n e u r o t i c s also frequently have strengths--assets which o f f e r a valuable

c o n t r i b u t i o n t o organizational o b j e c t i v e s . Several f a i r l y neurotic focal persons

i n the i n t e n s i v e sample handle t h e i r neurotic c o n f l i c t s by throwing themselves

i n t o t h e i r jobs w i t h vengence. The case of Assembly Superintendent, discussed i n

i

d e t a i l i n Chapter 13, i s a dramatic case of work a d d i c t i o n of a moderately n e u r o t i c

• / •
person. ;
The a n x i e t y proneness of a very high l e v e l executive i n a large corporation
•i ,

leads him t o a n t i c i p a t e problems w e l l i n advance and "worry 11

them through to

solution. He handles the tensions of on-coming s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s (e.g., d i f f i c u l t

reports t o the board o f d i r e c t o r s ) by becoming over-prepared. His remarkable

memory f o r d e t a i l and a n a l y t i c a b i l i t i e s are o f t e n w e l l used i n warding o f f

potential crises. His worry and anxiety exact t h e i r cost on him and h i s

family, i n terms of sleepless-nights, periods o f rapid weight loss, and l o n e l i n e s s

for h i s w i f e , but they are b e n e f i c i a l f o r the organization.

Even the dependency o f the neurotic, which may b a c k f i r e a t times, i s o f t e n

f u n c t i o n a l f o r the organization. I f he has an understanding and sympathetic

superior who w i l l give him d i r e c t i o n and support i n d i f f i c u l t periods, the o v e r l y

dependent n e u r o t i c may be the o r g a n i z a t i o n s most l o y a l member—and i t s hardest

worker. Save i n extreme cases, there i s l i t t l e reason at present to consider a

 I

11-15

High

High-high

Intensity

of
& Low-high
Reaction
High-low

9 Low-low

Low
Coping Experienced Tension Futility Loss o f
Failure Conflict Confidence
2.
Dependent Variable

Figure 11-1 Mean P r o f i l e s of Emotional Reactions f o r Cases i n the

Extreme Quartiles on Neurotic Anxiety and Degree o f
Role C o n f l i c t 1

Legend; Highest q u a r t i l e on c o n f l i c t and highest q u a r t i l e on n e u r o t i c

anxiety score (n=5),

Lowest q u a r t i l e on c o n f l i c t and highest q u a r t i l e on neurotic

anxiety score ( n 6 ) a
c

Highest q u a r t i l e on c o n f l i c t and lowest q u a r t i l e on neurotic

anxiety score (n«7),

Lowest q u a r t i l e on c o n f l i c t and lowest q u a r t i l e on neurotic

anxiety score ( n 5 ) »B

2.
Dependent variables converted to standard scores; high scores i n d i c a t e more
negative, l e s s desirable reactions from the.person's point o f view.
 11-16

p o l i c y o f selecting-out.those who are prone t o neurotic anxiety.

Neurotic symptoms i n non-neurotics under stress. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y

i n e m o t i o n a l i t y (both i n the f i g u r e and i n the tables) of non-neurotics under r o l e

c o n f l i c t and neurotics i n c o n f l i c t - f r e e r o l e s . The presence o f environmental stress

seems t o produce "neurotic" emotional reactions i n those who- score low on the

neurotic a n x i e t y scale. Depth i n t e r v i e w m a t e r i a l i n a number o f such cases revealed

even more Impressive i n d i c a t i o n o f neurotic symptoms i n distressed non-neurotics.

Evidence o f acute anxiety attacks came up both i n the manifest content o f the

words being said and i n mode o f expression and tone o f voice. Nervous laughter

or low and cracking voices accompanied the discussions o f the person's worries

and concerns i n several cases. One focal person broke i n t o tears as he reported

how depressed he had been because o f the way things were going on the j o b . I n two

cases, the respondent asked t h a t the tape-recorder be turned o f f while they were

recounting t h e i r c o n f l i c t s , i n d i c a t i n g both a need t o " t a l k - o u t " t h e i r problems w i t h

someone and an anxious concern about having t h e i r thoughts go "on the record."

Such I n c i d e n t s occurred, o f course, among the hlgh neuroticism group as w e l l , but

1 J

those c i t e d above represent people who score below the median on the anxiety

scale; Reports o f chronic f a t i g u e and neuresthenic immobil t z a t i o n i n the face: of

c o n f l i c t were almost as common f o r non-neurotics as neurotics.

The case m a t e r i a l supports the contention t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t s have more

i '

pronounced e f f e c t s on self-confidence and self-esteem f o r those high i n neurotic

anxiety, but such consequences are also found f o r the low s c o r e r s — s e l f - o r i e n t e d

concerns (e.g., worries about adequacy) are common i n both groups, as are tendencies

toward t u r n i n g aginst the s e l f i n times o f t r o u b l e . Evidence o f the use o f other

so-called n e u r o t i c d e f e n s e s — p r o j e c t i o n of h o s t i l i t y and of blame, displacement

o f role-induced anger and aggression t o the home s i t u a t i o n , d e n i a l o f personal

weaknesses o r o f the presence o f environmental s t r e s s o r s - - i s also found i n the

 11-17
protocols of neurotics and non-neurotics a l i k e . 1

Autonomic manifestations of tension and anxiety, such as sweating, trembling,

upset stomach and loss of a p p e t i t e , c o n s t i p a t i o n and diarrhea, are also mentioned by
c o n f l i c t e d non-neurotics, though not as f r e q u e n t l y as by neurotics under r o l e
conflict. I n p a r t , these r e f l e c t r e a l p h y s i o l o g i c a l malfunctions (perhaps
psychogenic), but r e p o r t i n g them may .also i n d i c a t e an over-concern w i t h b o d i l y
functions and t h e i r ailments. Reports by several about heart-attacks and u i c e r s
t h a t o t h e r s have suffered, and fears t h a t such disorders may descend upon them,
also have t h i s hypochondrical f l a v o r .

The p o i n t i n reviewing a l l . t h i s i s t h a t , even i n those people who are

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y emotionally stable, severe r o l e c o n f l i c t s can sometimes lead

t o c o g n i t i v e , emotional, and p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses which are generally

i n t e r p r e t e d as symptoms of neurosis, of a c t i v e neurotic c o n f l i c t s . These may be

temporary states which pass w i t h the r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n f l i c t episode. Conflict

may provide the opportunity f o r learning new modes of behavior and coping'

mechanisms, i . e . , f o r increasing the person's capacity to t o l e r a t e and handle stress.

But i f s u f f i c i e n t l y severe and p e r s i s t e n t , i t may d i s r u p t h i s i n t e g r a t i v e processes,

undermine h i s more desirable and r e i n f o r c e h i s more neurotic defenses, and leave

him more vulnerable to stress i n the f u t u r e .

This leads to the question, then, might chronic environmental stress lead
t ' <
to. p e r s o n a l i t y changes along the neuroticism dimension? Can recurrent and

p e r s i s t e n t r o l e c o n f l i c t s increase ones proneness to neurotic anxiety? Confirmation

of t h i s hypothesis of course requires l o n g i t u d i n a l study, but the personal costs

of c o n f l i c t , while temporarily acute, may endure w e l l beyond the c r i s i s episode.

 CHAPTER 12

INTROVERSION, SOCIABILITY AND DEFENSIVE WITHDRAWAL

Evidence was presented i n Chapter 3 suggesting that h i g h l y c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e

pressures lead to a d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n the r o l e c l u s t e r

as w e l l as t o emotional d i s r u p t i o n s . Let us t u r n now t o a more d e t a i l e d analysis

o f the Impact o f r o l e c o n f l i c t s on Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s and t o a consideration

of p e r s o n a l i t y variables which might be implicated i n t h i s process.

The Concept of Extroversion-Introversion.

With t h e possible exceptions o f emotional s t a b i l i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e , perhaps

no dimension o f personality has been treated so extensively as e x t r o v e r s i o n - i n t r o -

version. Jung's early and comprehensive treatment (1923) began a long series o f

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and discussions i n t o the meaning o f these terms and i n t o the

i

psychological dynamics implied by them. I n some respects t h i s work, taken I n sum,

has c o n t r i b u t e d t o confusion as w e l l as t o the enrichment o f understanding, and the

general u t i l i t y o f the conception has been challenged w i t h some j u s t i f i c a t i o n . But

a number o f recent q u a n t i t a t i v e m u l t i v a r i a t e studies ( C a t t e l l , 1957, and Eysenck,

I960) s t r o n g l y suggest that e x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n I s a r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

dimension o f personality and may be a useful p r e d i c t o r o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s

I n response.

I n s p i t e o f i t s emergence as a single f a c t o r i n a number o f studies, I t I s a

complex dimension made up o f several components. L e t us consider some o f the ways

i n which the behavior o f persons a t the polar extremes are t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected

to d i f f e r . I t should be clear, o f course, t h a t e x t r o v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i o n , rather

than representing d i s t i n c t types, c o n s t i t u t e s a continuum on which the general

population i s probably normally d i s t r i b u t e d .

1. Objective vs. subjective o r i e n t a t i o n . The extreme e x t r o v e r t i s generally

seen as being I n close touch w i t h h i s environment. He shows a great deal o f

 12-2

concern w i t h concrete things I n the r e a l world and i s extremely responsive t o

changes i n e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i . He tends t o be acutely task-oriented, involved i n

d i r e c t a c t i o n , and p r a c t i c a l . The i n t r o v e r t , on the other hand, tends t o be

s e l f - o r i e n t e d and i n t r o s p e c t i v e . His i n t e r e s t s run toward the i n t e l l e c t u a l and

a r t i s t i c and he shows more concern f o r a b s t r a c t ideas than f o r p r a c t i c a l r e a l i t y .

I n t h i s sense he may be c a l l e d a u t i s t i c . His extreme concern f o r I n t e r n a l matters

may r e s u l t I n i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n t o p r a c t i c a l matters, and h i s values are

more apt t o be i d e a l i s t i c or sentimental than r e a l i s t i c . I n short, the e x t r o v e r t

turns h i s thoughts, f e e l i n g s , and a t t e n t i o n outward perhaps a t the expense o f

s e l f - i n s i g h t , while the i n t r o v e r t turns h i s inward sometimes a t the expense o f

useful and e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n .

2. Surgency vs. desurgency. I n keeping with' the i n t e r e s t s and concerns o f

the e x t r o v e r t , he tends to be outgoing, a c t i v e , and z e s t f u l i n h i s overt behavior.

He i s o f t e n cheerful and happy-go-lucky. His demonstrativeness i s summarized i n

C a t t e l l s term, surgency.
0
I n contrast, the i n t r o v e r t tends to behave i n a serious,

q u i e t , constrained, even i n h i b i t e d manner.

3, Sociability. I n interpersonal a f f a i r s as I n the worlds o f thought, f e e l i n g ,

and a c t i o n , the e x t r o v e r t tends t o be outgoing. He enjoys s o c i a l a f f a i r s and l i k e s

to be w i t h people. He shows a free and easy gregarlousness i n s o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n .

He i s o f t e n open and warm-hearted w i t h close f r i e n d s , and i s generally accepting o f

and Involved i n the behavior of others. But t h i s involvement i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s

i • t

r e f l e c t s n o t so much a dependency on others as an i n t e r e s t i n them which grows

out of self-confidence. As a r e s u l t , he i s o f t e n prominent i n s o c i a l groups,

e s p e c i a l l y I n those which are newly formed. A t the other extreme, the i n t r o v e r t

i s more s o l i t a r y , shy and r e t i r i n g . He tends t o avoid social gatherings and

Involvements I n the l i v e s o f others. He i s o f t e n non-communicative, even

secretive, and develops close r e l a t i o n s h i p s only w i t h great e f f o r t .

 12-3
i

4. Emotional v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The general carefree a t t i t u d e of the e x t r o v e r t

apparently serves him In good stead i n periods of stress. He i s seldom troubled

by tension or anxiety; cool-headedness i n the face o f stress i s more t y p i c a l .

Moreover, he tends to be involved i n but not immobilized by p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e s (a

frequent source o f stress i n our achievement-oriented society) and may approach

r i s k s w i t h a s p i r i t of adventure i f not w i t h enthusiasm. He sees problems as

e x i s t i n g i n the environment, not i n himself. Consistent w i t h t h i s p i c t u r e i s

the e x t r o v e r t ' s persistence i n a c t i v e coping e f f o r t s i n the face of stress. The

i n t r o v e r t , on the other hand, tends to be h i g h l y ego-involved i n achievement or

competitive s i t u a t i o n s and thus vulnerable to' the t h r e a t o f f a i l u r e . He i s more

concerned w i t h security than w i t h adventure i n high r i s k s i t u a t i o n s . Moreover, he

i s apt to be acutely .bothered by tension and anxiety ( i . e . , the anxiety has more
. i
conscious m a n i f e s t a t i o n s than f o r the e x t r o v e r t ) . Therefore, r e s i g n a t i o n or
• . • • • ' - ' / :• ,

withdrawal by the I n t r o v e r t i n response t o stress tends t o replace the e x t r o v e r t ' s

assertive coping a c t i v i t y .

This t h e o r e t i c a l conception of the behaviors and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which

d i f f e r e n t i a t e i n t r o v e r t s and e x t r o v e r t s , based l a r g e l y on c l i n i c a l studies, matches

quite w e l l the f o u r t h factor derived from the o b j e c t i v e questionnaire m a t e r i a l

(see Table 10-1). The o b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n C a t t e l ' s

cyclotheymia-schizotheymia' scale and probably i n the i n t e l l i g e n c e loadings.

Surgency or the active-passive dimension i s represented, of course, by C a t t e l l s 0

Surgency. scale.. Both the Bernreuter F-2 ( s o c i a b i l i t y ) scale and the measure of

need f o r independence portray the s o c i a b i l i t y aspects of e x t r o v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i o n .

i

And, emotional v u l n e r a b i l i t y of i n t r o v e r t s i s r e f l e c t e d I n the negative loading

o f Bernreuter F-l (emotional i n s t a b i l i t y or neuroticism) and i n the p o s i t i v e loading

of C a t t e l l s parmia (immunity to parasympathetic neural reactions to stress) scale.

8

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t r o v e r s i o n and neuroticism has long been discussed

 12-4

i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and some components o f the neurotic anxiety f a c t o r also load

s i g n i f i c a n t l y on Factor 4. The association between these two factors (they are

probably n o t t r u l y orthogonal) i s probably the r e s u l t of the proneness of i n t r o v e r t s

toward a n x i e t y neuroses rather than h y s t e r i c a l conversion neuroses, and the

tendency f o r Factor 1 t o measure the former more completely than the l a t t e r .

E x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n and the Interpersonal Consequences of Role C o n f l i c t s .

Given the present focus on interpersonal consequences of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity,

the concern of the present chapter i s p r i m a r i l y i n the s o c i a b i l i t y rather than

the emotional components of the introversion-extroversion dimension. The Bernreuter

(F-2) scale of social Independence ( s o l i t a r i n e s s ) vs. s o c i a b i l i t y (gregariousness)

probably b e s t taps t h i s aspect of the t o t a l f a c t o r . The introvert°s autonomy

o r i e n t a t i o n and the extroverts a f f i l i a t i o n tendencies are w e l l r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n .

Therefore, the q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s chapter are based on a median

s p l i t o f the sample of f o c a l persons on t h i s measure. I t ' s l o c a t i o n i n the f a c t o r

s t r u c t u r e c o n t r i b u t e s t o the' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the f i n d i n g s .
J

S o c i a b i l i t y and Frequency of Social I n t e r a c t i o n . The very core o f the

• i •
concept of s o c i a b i l i t y as a personality dimension implies v a r i a t i o n i n tendencies

toward s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n ; extroverts are expected to be i n close, constant

communication w i t h t h e i r associates while i n t r o v e r t s are expected to communicate

less frequently. I n Table 12-1 we f i n d t h a t t h i s i s c e r t a i n l y the case! But a

more s t r i k i n g .finding i s also presented there.

I n s e r t Table 12-1 about here

I n Chapter 3, data were presented which indicated t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t s tend

to undermine communication processes w i t h i n t h e r o l e cluster. Now we see t h a t

t h i s r e s u l t holds true f o r extroverts and i n t r o v e r t s a l i k e . Under r e l a t i v e

 i
i
i
\

12-5

1;

Table 12-1 :

Mean Frequency of Communication w i t h Associates by Degree of

Roie C o n f l i c t and S o c i a b i l i t y of the Focal Persdn

Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

Ugh Low — £ —
Total

Introverts 3.77 5,17 < .05 4.13

(17) (6)

Extroverts 4.33 5.88 <.05 5.35

(9) (17)

n.s. n. s. <.01
 12-6

freedom from c o n f l i c t , i n t r o v e r t s communicate nearly as frequently as do e x t r o v e r t s ,

and when c o n f l i c t i s high, the l a t t e r are almost as non-communicative as i n t r o v e r t s B

Frequency o f communication c e r t a i n l y i s not determined s o l e l y by personal

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s seem t o play a more s i g n i f i c a n t part.

S o c i a b i l i t y and Social Influence. Communication i s , o f course, the medium

f o r s o c i a l influence. I f ones r o l e senders are attempting t o influence one t o

be something he i s not or t o do something he f i n d s very d i f f i c u l t or unpleasant

(as I s the case w i t h r o l e c o n f l i c t s ) , a sharp reduction i n communication may also

e f f e c t i v e l y c u r t a i l the influence. Thus the withdrawal from communication may be

seen as a coping technique aimed a t p r o t e c t i n g the s e l f from s t r e s s f u l role.

demands. Further evidence o f t h i s coping e f f o r t can be seen I n Table 12-2*

« ? - . 'i
i
a, a a. _> _ a> «> — « — c i m n M i x i D . — a a f l X B B i — — • • • m m

I n s e r t Table 12-2 about here

Both e x t r o v e r t s and i n t r o v e r t s a t t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y less power t o t h e i r

1

associates under'high than under low c o n f l i c t . But the d i f f e r e n c e between high

i -

arid low c o n f l i c t i s somewhat greater f o r the i n t r o v e r t s . What i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n

t h i s table I s that not only do i n t r o v e r t s a t t r i b u t e very l i t t l e power t o t h e i r role

senders when c o n f l i c t i s severe, but when they are free o f c o n f l i c t they r e p o r t

, l .

t h a t t h e i r senders c o n s t i t u t e a very important'source o f influence on them. When

the s o c i a l environment I s benign, they' seem t o communicate,well and t o i n d i c a t e '

a high degree o f s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to influence from those around them.

Table 12-2b suggests that t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n o f power is. subject

\ 1 \ , j

t o question. An assessment'of the power o f r o l e senders over each f o c a l person,

Independent o f the f o c a l person's perception, was made based on a broad b a t t e r y o f

questions asked o f each ro^e sender. According t o t h i s measure, r o l e senders o f

i n t r o v e r t s /have moderate power over him, on the average, whether he i s faced w i t h

c o n f l i c t or not, i n s p i t e o f the d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t r i b u t e d power. Extroverts, on

 12-7

Table 12-2

Mean A t t r i b u t e d and Objective Power o f Others over the Focal Person

by Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t and S o c i a b i l i t y of the JFqcal Person

A. MEAN POWER ATTRIBUTED TO OTHERS BY THE FOCAL PERSON

Degree o f Role C o n f l i c t

High Low p total

Introverts 3,77 6.00 <.01 4.48

(17) (6)

Extroverts 4.00 5.41 < . 01 4.92

(9) (17)

B. MEAN POWER OF OTHERS OVER THE FOCAL PERSON BASED ON OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

Introverts 4.53 4.50 n. s. 4.52

(17) (6)

Extroverts 4.11 5,29 4.88

(9) (17)
 12-8

the other hand, are apparently more r e a l i s t i c i n t h e i r evaluation o f t h e i r

asscoiates' power. This would suggest that when e x t r o v e r t s are under strong

c o n f l i c t s , t h e i r withdrawal o f v u l n e r a b i l i t y to influence i s probably more e f f e c t i v e

than i s the case f o r i n t r o v e r t s under s i m i l a r conditions.

Apparently, persons w i t h strong tendencies toward i n t r o v e r s i o n are somewhat

a u t i s t i c i n t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n of power, r e f l e c t i n g , the s o c i a l world not as i t i s

but as t h e y would l i k e I t to be. But i t i s perhaps a mistake t o i n t e r p r e t these

findinjgs as''indicating pure fantasy on the I n t r o v e r t ' s p a r t . Rather, we need t o

examine the concept of power from the ponts o f view of both the influencer and the

one being influenced. I n the former case we'are concerned w i t h the i n f l u e n c e r ' s

a b i l i t y t o get the influencee to do what he wishes. When i n t r o v e r t e d ^persons are

I '

the influencees, r o l e senders (influencers) seem to have only moderate success

whether the c o n f l i c t i s of high or low degree. However, the i n t r o v e r t e d f o c a l

person r e p o r t s that h i s assolcates have a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on him (not

necessarily i n ways they desire) i f they w i t h o l d pressures toward change, and

very l i t t l e impact i f not. They loom large i n determining h i s behavior (perhaps

i n ways of which they are unaware) when they avoid c r e a t i n g c o n f l i c t s f o r him,.

1 ,
but when r o l e c o n f l i c t s are. imposed, the i n t r o v e r t attempts (perhaps successfully
i n some respects) to w a l l himself o f f from those c r e a t i n g the c o n f l i c t . He may

carry out the e s s e n t i a l s of t h e i r l e g i t i m a t e demands, but he allows them to a f f e c t

as l i t t l e o f h i s l i f e as possible.

A f f e c t i v e Interpersonal O r i e n t a t i o n s and S o c i a b i l i t y . I f introverts d i f f e r

somewhat from e x t r o v e r t s i n t h e i r communication patterns and a t t r i b u t i o n of power,

they c o n t r a s t even more markedly I n t h e i r a f f e c t i v e attachments t o t h e i r associates.

•I '

In general, the higher the f o c a l person's s o c i a l independence score, the lower

his index o f a f f e c t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds ( r = .44, p<.001). I n t r o v e r t s tend

to hold t h e i r associates i n lower esteem than do t h e i r more sociable counterparts.

 12-9

While one might expect t h i s to be part of the general o r i e n t a t i o n of the h i g h l y

i n t r o v e r t e d person, a more d e t a i l e d analysis places t h i s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n serious

doubt» L e t us look at some o f the components o f the a f f e c t i v e interpersonal bonds

index as they are affected by high vs, low degrees of r o l e c o n f l i c t .

I n s e r t Table 12-3 about here

As has been shown i n Chapter 3, the more intense the r o l e c o n f l i c t , the

lower the person's confidence i n h i s superiors, and the lower h i s respect f o r and

t r u s t i n h i s work associates. Table 12-3 suggests that the consequences of c o n f l i c t

are more pronounced f o r i n t r o v e r t s than f o r e x t r o v e r t s . Under severe c o n f l i c t s ,

the former have the lowest'confidence, t r u s t , arid respect f o r those around them.

But what i s surprising i n t h i s table i s that i n the r e l a t i v e absence of r o l e

c o n f l i c t , i n t r o v e r t s r e p o r t a great deal of confidence i n t h e i r superiors, sub-

\ • •

s t a n t i a l respect f o r the judgment and competence o f others, and a very high degree

of t r u s t i n t h e i r role senders.

Table 12-3d presents the mean response o f r o l e senders t o a question which i s

complementary to the one the focal person i s asked on trust-- Suppose Mr. n

were having some sort o f d i f f i c u l t y i n h i s job. ' To what extent would you be

w i l l i n g to go out of your way to help him i f he asked f o r I t ? " While the d i f f e r e n c e s

among the f o u r conditions are less marked ( f a i l i n g to reach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ) ,

the p a t t e r n i s c l e a r l y the same as i s found i n the other p a r t s of the table.

Apparently the responses o f i n t r o v e r t s are based i n r e a l i t y t o a considerable

degree i n t h i s case.

This t a b l e supports i n q u a n t i t a t i v e terms an impression which i s rather

s t r i k i n g i n some of the more open-ended case m a t e r i a l s , namely that those who

score high on independence are quite capable o f close personal associations w i t h

others and i n f a c t seem t o be somewhat i d e a l i s t i c about s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . %n

 12-10

Table 12-3

Mean Confidence I n Superiors, Trust i n Associates, and F a c i l i t a t i v e n e s s

of As soclates by Degree of Role Cpnf1let and S o c i a b i l i t y of the Focal Person

A. MEAN CONFIDENCE OF THE FOCAL PERSON IN HIS ORGANIZATIONAL SUPERIORS

Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

High Low p Total

Introvert s 5.59 7.50 <\ 001 6,09

Extroverts 5.67 6.75 6.46

B. MEAN RESPECT FOR JUDGMENT AND COMPETENCE OF ASSOCIATES

Introverts 3.94 6.00 <^.01 :

4.48

Extroverts 4.67 5.88 5.46

C. MEAN TRUST IN THE COOPERATIVE NESS OF ASSOCIATES

Introverts 4.12 6.33 <.01 4.70

Extroverts 5.11 5.65 5.46

D. MEAN WILLINGNESS OF ASSOCIATES TO FACILITATE THE FOCAL PERSON

Introverts 4.06 5.67 4.48

Extroverts 5.22 5.29 5.27

 12-11

a supportive, rewarding social environment; independent persons show a p r e d i l e c t i o n

for congenial .and t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s , (not necessarily f o r warmth and intimacy)

which i s e a s i l y undermined by conditions of stress. P's preference f o r autonomy

becomes m a n i f e s t ' p r i m a r i l y when social contacts are s t r e s s f u l , i . e . , when others

are e x e r t i n g s t r o n g pressures on P to induce a change i n h i s behavior.

Others Perceptions o f the Person's S o c i a b i l i t y and Independence. Let us t u r n

, ' , i . . „. ^ , i
now t o the e f f e c t s of the focal person's tendencies toward s o c i a b i l i t y on the way
i •
he i s perceived by h i s work associates. Each of the r o l e senders was asked t o r a t e

the focal person, i n h i s c l u s t e r on a series o f 22 t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e a d j e c t i v e s W

phrases. A f a c t o r analysis of these r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e s that these perceptions

1
i i A
c l u s t e r around f i v e general dimensions, each representing a continuum along which
\\ .i j i

the f o c a l person's public image may vary, (see Appendix).> Two of these dimensions
< * -<•'

are e s p e c i a l l y relevant here. 'Factor 5, S o c i a b i l i t y , and Factor 3, Independence.

We should expect, o f course, that those who score on the Introverted end o f

the Bernreuter measure would be rated by t h e i r associates as low on s o c i a b i l i t y

and high on Independence, and vice versa f o r those who score on the extroverted

end of t h a t scale. These expectations are Indeed confirmed, considering the

r i g h t hand column of Table 12-4, -(p<.0.4 in both cases). r Those who are I n t r o v e r t e d

i n c h a r a c t e r — a s measured by objective personality t e s t s — t e n d to have public

Images which are characterized as high on Independence and low on s o c i a b i l i t y . In

contrast, e x t r o v e r t s are seen as h i g h l y sociable and only moderately independent.

The r e s t o f t h i s table suggests, however, that t h i s i s true o n l y under conditions

of high r o l e c o n f l i c t . I n t r o v e r t s under low c o n f l i c t are seen as j u s t about as

sociable and i f anything as less independent t h a n are the e x t r o v e r t s .

' ' l , .•

I n s e r t Table 12-4- about here

Two dynamic processes are implied by these r e s u l t s . F i r s t , the t r a i t of

 12-12

Table 12-4

Mean P e r c e p t i o n by O t h e r s o f S o c i a b i l i t y and Independence*'

by Degree o f R o l e C o n f l i c t a n d S o c i a b i l i t y o f t h e F o c a l Person

A. MEAN S O C I A B I L I T Y OF FOCAL PERSON AS SEEN BY OTHERS

Degree o f R o l e C o n f l i c t

High - Low Total

Introverts 78o00 81.17 78.83

Extroverts 82,67 82.53 82,54

2.
Bo. MEAN INDEPENDENCE OF FOCAL PERSON A S SEEN BY OTHERS

Introverts 71.06 65.67 69.65

Extroverts 66. 78 67-i2 67.00

1.
Public Image f a c t o r 5; Sociability Public image f a c t o r 3: "' I n d e p e n d e n c e
• • i•
.68, makes f r i e n d s e a s i l y .76, independent
.66, c h e e r f u l .60, p r e f e r s t o work t h i n g s o u t
.49, s e n s i t i v e to o t h e r s , . i n h i s own way
sympathetic to others .31, s e l f - c o n f i d e n t
.40, c a r e f r e e , easygoing .29, , r e s i s t s c o n t r o l , . r e s e n t s
-.34, r e s i s t s control, resents being given orders
being given orders .29, s o c i a l l y bold, s e l f - a s s e r t i v e ,
 12-13

i n d e p e n d e n c e may be m a n i f e s t e d overtly mainly i n t i m e s o f s t r e s s and even then

primarily toward those'who a r e i n d u c i n g t h e s t r e s s (i.e., t o w a r d ones r o l e senders)

That i s , p e r h a p s one d e m o n s t r a t e s h i s t e n d e n c i e s toward i n t r o v e r s i o n o n l y when

s o c i a l c o n t a c t s t e n d t o be s t r e s s f u l , b u t g e n e r a l l y i s a b l e t o m a i n t a i n quite

congenial r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s who a r e a c c e p t i n g and c o o p e r a t i v e . This inter-

p r e t a t i o n i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s presented

i n T a b l e s 12-1 t h r o u g h 1 2 - 3 .

To e l a b o r a t e , w i t h d r a w a l from and a v o i d a n c e of contacts with others i s

e s s e n t i a l l y a defensive t a c t i c , a s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e maneuver w h i c h i s used o n l y when

s o c i a l engagements a r e s t r e s s f u l o r t h r e a t e n i n g , and i n t r o v e r t s a r e w e l l t r a i n e d i n

the u s e o f t h i s c o p i n g mechanism. We have s e e n t h a t t h e i n t r o v e r t e d f o c a l person

who Is conflict-free, communicates f r e q u e n t l y and e n j o y s s t r o n g , c l o s e , a f f e c t i v e

bonds w i t h h i s a s s o c i a t e s ; t h e l a t t e r a r e g i v e n l i t t l e r e a s o n t o doubt h i s

sociability or to f e e l t h a t he i s too i n d e p e n d e n t . B u t u n d e r c o n f l i c t , he l a c k s

t r u s t and r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r s , r e d u c e s h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h them and h i s s u s c e p t -

ibility to their influence. I t i s precisely these responses to s o c i a l l y Induced

s t r e s s t h a t c a u s e him t o be s e e n a s u n s o c i a b l e and o v e r l y i n d e p e n d e n t . This

suggests t h a t the s o c i a b i l i t y component o f e x t r o v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i o n may n o t be

a general trait, always o p e r a t i v e , but r a t h e r a broad coping s t y l e which i s used

only i n times of stress.

The second p r o c e s s f o l l o w s from and f e e d s on t h i s f i r s t . I n complex

o r g a n i z a t i o n s — i n which interdependence i s a f a c t o f l i f e and i n t e r p e r s o n a l

coordination i s a basic requirement—extreme independence i s g e n e r a l l y s e e n a s

an u n d e s i r a b l e , perhaps even unacceptable trait. Therefore, role senders a r e a p t

to e x e r t s t r o n g p r e s s u r e s toward change on one who I s s e e n t o be t o o i n d e p e n d e n t

and l a c k i n g in sociability. Indeed, we f i n d , t h a t t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f t h e f o c a l

persons w i t h p u b l i c images w h i c h a r e above a v e r a g e on i n d e p e n d e n c e a r e i n t h e

h i g h c o n f l i c t group, w h i l e l e s s t h a n o n e - t h i r d o f t h o s e who a r e b e l o w t h e m e d i a n
 12-14

on perceived independence a r e subjected to h i g h role conflict. This association i s

significant atip^.01. Thus, t h o s e who are c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l l y introverted are

frequently apt t o be s e e n a s i n d e p e n d e n t and u n s o c i a b l e and t o be subjected to

considerable conflict. The few i n t r o v e r t s who are not s e e n by their a s s o c i a t e s as

i n d e p e n d e n t and unsociable are l e s s apt to face strong role conflicts. Those who

are in fact q u i t e s o c i a b l e ( i n terms of the B e r n r e u t e r measure) are apt to be seen

a s s u c h and are l e s s l i k e l y to be subjected to severe conflicts. When they are,

a s i s shown i n T a b l e 12-4, i t i s apt t o be for reasons other than having a public

image o f i n d e p e n d e n c e and l a c k of sociability.

S o c i a b i l i t y and Emotional Tension. The, g r e a t e r s e n s i t i v i t y of i n t r o v e r t s , as -

reflected i n t h e i r w i t h d r a w a l from o t h e r s when under c o n f l i c t , suggests that, t h e

personal c o s t s of s o c i a l l y i n d u c e d c o n f l i c t s may be g r e a t e r f o r them t h a n f o r their

more e x t r o v e r t e d counterparts. Table 12-5 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s indeed the case.'

Under s e v e r e role conflicts, the i n t r o v e r t s u f f e r s a g r e a t d e a l o f t e n s i o n on the job,

b u t when h i s r o l e i s r e l a t i v e l y u n c o n f l i c t e d he t e n d s to be quite f r e e of tension.

Extroverts, on the o t h e r hand, r e a c h n e i t h e r o f these extremes. A similar

pattern Is found r e g a r d i n g other emotional consequences of r o l e conflict.

I n s e r t Table 12-5 about here

What i s p e r h a p s most d i s t u r b i n g i n t h i s t a b l e i s t h a t t h o s e who a r e most

> •
vulnerable to r o l e c o n f l i c t s emotionally--the i n t r o v e r t s - - a r e a l s o t h e ones who

face the most severe c o n f l i c t s i n industrial organizations. T h i s i s a l l the more

pathetic i n a s much a s t h o s e same p e r s o n s a r e capable of such h i g h degrees of

confidence, trust, and r e s p e c t toward o t h e r s i n the a b s e n c e o f stress.

I t w o u l d be erroneous, of course, to assume t h a t the r o l e s e n d e r s of

i n t r o v e r t s take a perverse j o y i n h i t t i n g where i t h u r t s . R a t h e r , we must assume,

a s has been s a i d above, t h a t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s w h i c h r e q u i r e a g r e a t d e a l of

 Table 12-5

Mean T e n s i o n on t h e Job by Degree o f R o l e C o n f l i c t

and S o c i a b i l i t y o f the F o c a l P e r s o n

MEAN TENSION

Degree o f R o l e Conflict

High Low Total

Introverts 5.35 3.17 <.01 4.78

(17) (6)

Extroverts 4.44 4.44 n» s. 4.31

(9) (17)

Total 5.04 3.95 <105

(26) (23)
 12-16

I n t e r p e r s o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n , autonomy, a t l e a s t i n the extreme, i s o f d o u b t f u l

virtue- I t i s too.costly for t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . W i t h d r a w a l from o t h e r s i s

unacceptable because o f t h e s e c o s t s , and t h e r e s p o n s e of others to withdrawal

•i i

i s an i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of pressures r e s u l t i n g i n an increase i n c o n f l i c t . Thus, the

major coping s t r a t e g y o f t h e i n t r o v e r t may be p r o t e c t i v e i n t h e s h o r t r u n b u t

r i .

self-defeating i n the long r u n . Avoidance o f ones l e g i t i m a t e r o l e senders i s

untenable from the sender's p o i n t o f view. I f one, b e c a u s e of h i s withdrawal,

does n o t " h e a r " the r e q u e s t s o f h i s a s s o c i a t e s i t i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t they

begin to "shout louder."

The characteristic coping s t y l e o f the i n t r o v e r t p r o d u c e s and i n t e n s i f i e s a

i

vicious cycle; t h e more he w i t h d r a w s , t h e more he i s s e e n a s t o o independent.

Therefore, h e i s s u b j e c t e d t o more i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e s t o change ( i . e . , t o be more

r e s p o n s i v e ) , h i s emotional t e n s i o n s a r e i n c r e a s e d , and he i s s t i m u l a t e d t o f u r t h e r

withdrawal. U n l e s s he l e a v e s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , h i s s e n d e r s a r e a p t t o e v e n t u a l l y

block h i s coping e f f o r t s and p u t him i n a b i n d from w h i c h he c a n n o t withdraw,

increasing h i svulnerability to the emotional costs of conflict. Thus, t h e

i n t r o v e r t ' s v e r y e f f o r t t o r e d u c e t h e c o n f l i c t may b r i n g i t b a c k t o him r e d o u b l e d .

C o n s e q u e n c e s o f I n t r o v e r s i o n - E x t r o v e r s l o n - - I n t e r p r e t a t l o n s and C o n c l u s i o n s .
The m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s chapter indicates, perhaps t o no one's
i f " ,

surprise, t h a t on t h e whole i n t r o v e r t e d p e r s o n s a r e r e c o g n i z e d a s s u c h by t h e i r

associates, t h a t t h e y communicate l e s s , and m a i n t a i n weaker i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds

t h a n do t h o s e who a r e more s o c i a b l e . 1
I t would seem, from a l l o f t h i s , t h a t t h e
i

introvert i s disinterested In s o c i a l a f f a i r s and h a s l i t t l e need f o r h i s f e l l o w

man. B u t s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n would be n o t o n l y much too s i m p l e b u t a l s o basically

incorrect. A more"appropriate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , suggested by q u a l i t a t i v e case

m a t e r i a l , m i g h t be t h a t t h e i n t r o v e r t a v o i d s o t h e r s n o t b e c a u s e t h e y mean so

little to h i m but because t h e y a r e so i m p o r t a n t t o him.

 12-17

The evidence, from t h e open-ended r e s p o n s e s o f i n t r o v e r t s under b o t h h i g h and

low c o n f l i c t , suggests t h a t t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d o t h e r s and toward social

r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n general are i d e a l i s t i c . They a r e , i f anything, a s k i n g too much

from o t h e r s . T h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l n e e d s seem t o be unrealistic, not in their

absence'but i n t h e i r excessive' strength. I f this i s t r u e , t h e n any r e l a t i o n s h i p

which f a l l s s h o r t of the I d e a l tends t o be disappointing, sometimes d i s t r e s s i n g l y

so. According t o t h i s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h o s e who s c o r e h i g h on i n t r o v e r s i o n tend

to have s t r o n g ( b u t g e n e r a l l y c o v e r t ) dependency n e e d s .

The apparent.paradox I n t h i s formulation I s resolved I f a distinction Is

drawn b e t w e e n I n n e r n e e d s and b e h a v i o r s g r o w i n g out o f t h o s e n e e d s . The introvert s 0

behavior i s a k i n t o a common r e s p o n s e o f one who has e x c e s s i v e l y high achievement

aspirations, i . e . , an avoidance of s e r i o u s t e s t s which might r e s u l t In failure.

The person w i t h very s t r o n g dependency n e e d s i s o f t e n a s k i n g more o f h i s

associates t h a n he c a n r e a s o n a b l y expect. U n l e s s he i s very s k i l l f u l in inter-

personal a f f a i r s , ( o r u n l e s s - h e h a s e x c e p t i o n a l l y warm and supportive a s s o c i a t e s )

, • ' ; .
he i s o f t e n doomed t o f a i l u r e from the s t a r t . Unfortunately, the introvert
/ i

frequently l a c k s such s k i l l s , perhaps because he g i v e s h i m s e l f l i t t l e opportunity

. 'i i
to develop them. I t is t h u s p e r h a p s l i t t l e wonder t h a t he l e a r n s to a v o i d social
i i

s i t u a t i o n s which are apt to be f r u s t r a t i n g and shows some r e l u c t a n c e t o s t r i k e up

casual conversations for fear of disappointment i n place of g r a t i f i c a t i o n . While

the i n t r o v e r t w a n t s a g r e a t d e a l , he l e a r n s . t o expect little i n the s o c i a l realm.

Thus, i n t r o v e r s i o n i s o f t e n a posture o f r i s k - a v o i d a n c e - - i f p a i n i s too often

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h commitment t o and i n v o l v e m e n t i n o t h e r s , d e n i a l o f the underlying

need may become p r e f e r r e d . ' 1

Consistent with this picture i s the account, o f t - r e p e a t e d by introverts in

the i n t e n s i v e study, o f s t r e s s a s g r o w i n g out o f f a u l t y i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n -

• . ' . (' ' ' •i
ships. W h i l e those f o c a l p e r s o n s who tend toward e x t r o v e r s i o n l i s t a wide

variety of s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h may l e a d t o s t r e s s , many o f them i m p e r s o n a l , time

 12-18

a f t e r time the i n t r o v e r t s pointed to d i s t u r b a n c e s i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s as major

sources of s t r e s s . ' The e x t r o v e r t c a n be r e l a x e d , c a s u a l , and open i n h i s

i •

r e l a t i o n s h i p s because he i s relatively realistic about them--he n e i t h e r a s k s nor

e x p e c t s t o o much from them. As a r e s u l t , he t e n d s , on t h e a v e r a g e , t o g i v e more

to' them. The introvert, on t h e o t h e r hand, f o r m s c l o s e r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s o n l y

i '

w i t h g r e a t e f f o r t and given favorable conditions. He i s more a p t to have a few

c l o s e f r i e n d s t h a n many c o r d i a l a c q u a i n t a n c e s ; o r g a n i z a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e the

l a t t e r and d i s c o u r a g e the former. ,

The i n t e r p e r s o n a l nature o f s t r e s s f o r the i n t r o v e r t s u g g e s t s one c o p i n g method

rather d i r e c t l y , namely a w i t h d r a w a l from o t h e r s who a r e c a u s i n g the s t r e s s . If

i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t s are tension-producing, avoidance of s u c h c o n t a c t s i s

perhaps t h e most i m m e d i a t e l y e f f e c t i v e d e f e n s e mechanism, and this i s a

mechanism t h e i n t r o v e r t h a s l e a r n e d t o use w e l l . But a t l e a s t i n l a r g e Industrial

o r g a n i z a t i o n s i t o f t e n p r o v e s t o be a poor c h o i c e , s e l f - d e f e a t i n g I n the l o n g

run because, the evidence s u g g e s t s , a v i c i o u s c i r c l e may o f t e n be i n i t i a t e d thereby.

While the r o l e s y s t e m s o f most i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e usually

reasonably flexible, their s u c c e s s depends on the a b i l i t y of role senders to

i n d u c e the b e h a v i o r a p p r o p r i a t e t o the r o l e s . Withdrawal tends to c u r t a i l the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s u c h i n d u c t i o n s and to r e d u c e the l i k e l i h o o d that mutually

s a t i s f a c t o r y .changes i n the r o l e demands c a n be found. The general reaction to

another's withdrawal i s t o i n c r e a s e the p r e s s u r e s and' p e r h a p s t o add t o them

p r e s s u r e s a g a i n s t any c o n t i n u e d o r r e p e a t e d w i t h d r a w a l . Thus, i f a r o l e conflict

• f
f

i n s t i g a t e s w i t h d r a w a l a s a means, o f a v o i d i n g t e n s i o n , the w i t h d r a w a l i s apt to

generate f u r t h e r and more s t r e s s f u l c o n f l i c t s which a r e a p t to l e a d to even

stronger e f f o r t s a t withdrawal. Such c o n t i n u e d d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f interpersonal

r e l a t i o n s and p r o b a b l y o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the r o l e s y s t e m c a n seldom be

tolerated f o r l o n g I n e x e c u t i v e and supervisory p o s i t i o n s without inducing rather

pointed changes i n the system.

 12-19

The d i s c u s s i o n thus f a r h a s d e a l t almost e n t i r e l y w i t h p e r s o n s who show

p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r independence and a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n toward withdrawal as their

basic coping style. But the r e s u l t s presented-In t h i s chapter suggest that w i t h -

d r a w a l i n t h e f a c e o f r o l e c o n f l i c t s may be a much more g e n e r a l r e s p o n s e , manifested,

albeit i n l e s s marked d e g r e e , e v e n by t h o s e who a r e h i g h l y e x t r o v e r t e d . Many

people t u r n to others for a i d i n periods of s t r e s s , but i t i s quite u n l i k e l y

t h a t they w i l l t u r n toward t h o s e who a r e c r e a t i n g the s t r e s s . Quite the contrary.

When o n e ' s , a s s o c i a t e s a r e c r e a t i n g a n x i e t y - p r o v o k i n g c o n f l i c t s , few p e o p l e , even

extroverts w i l l r e s i s t a l t o g e t h e r a temptation t o withdraw.

Perhaps i n t h i s t h e r e i s r e a s o n f o r c o n c e r n about t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of per-

sistent or recurrent role c o n f l i c t s . J u s t a s we v i e w e d i n the l a s t chapter the

possibility t h a t c h r o n i c r o l e c o n f l i c t s , may s e r i o u s l y undermine o n e ' s emotional

stability, m a k i n g n e u r o t i c symptoms more l i k e l y , a r e we n o t s e e i n g h e r e s i g n s t h a t

o n e s s o c i a b i l i t y may be s i m i l a r l y eroded? I s the p r o b a b i l i t y of withdrawal

I n c r e a s e d b y repeated use o f t h i s defense? I n short, i s chronic c o n f l i c t , induced

by o n e s r o l e s e n d e r s , a p t t o make him more and.more i n t r o v e r t e d i n character?

A n s w e r s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s c a n n o t be d e r i v e d from t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . But they

suggest Important d i r e c t i o n s for further investigation

 CHAPTER 13

CONFLICT AND ATTEMPTED SOLUTION

S i x c a s e s analyzed I n terms o f coping s t y l e s

The s t r e s s e s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t a r e not equally damanging t o a l l who experience

them. On the contrary, we have s e e n ( C h a p t e r s 9-13) t h a t the e x t e n t t o which r o l e

c o n f l i c t p r o d u c e s symptoms o f s t r a i n i s m e d i a t e d by the p e r s o n a l i t y o f the in-

dividual iri c o n f l i c t ( P ) , and by the n a t u r e o f h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s c o - w o r k e r s

(Os) . . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of r o l e c o n f l i c t to s t r a i n , and the i n t e r a c t i o n of

personality f a c t o r s and Interpersonal orientations i n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , can be

i

understood i n terms of the a t t e m p t s o f the f o c a l p e r s o n ( P ) t o cope w i t h t h e stress

of c o n f l i c t or ambiguity. To the extent that h i s coping techniques are success-

f u l he r e d u c e s the initial s t r e s s o r a l l e v i a t e s the resultant strain. To the

extent that h i s coping i s u n s u c c e s s f u l , t h e c o n f l i c t may i n c r e a s e or the strain

become intensified.

This chapter c o n s i s t s of a d e t a i l e d consideration o f the ways I n which

d i f f e r e n t c o p i n g s t y l e s a r e employed to h a n d l e j o b - r e l a t e d c o n f l i c t s . For this

i , :
I

p u r p o s e we r e l y h e a v i l y on the v e r b a t i m r e s p o n s e s of s i x f o c a l p e r s o n s and the

c l u s t e r s of o t h e r p e r s o n s to w h i c h e a c h i s r e l a t e d on the job. We t r e a t these six

c l u s t e r s by means o f q u a l i t a t i v e , c a s e - s t u d y a n a l y s i s r a t h e r t h a n the more nomo-

t h e t i c a p p r o a c h used h e r e t o f o r e w i t h b o t h the m a t e r i a l s o f the i n t e n s i v e study and

those of the national sampled' Figure 1 summarizes the s i x positions to be

analyzed, the c o r e problem i n e a c h c a s e , and the c o p i n g s t y l e m a n i f e s t e d by the

focal persons In attempting solutions. '

1.
We h a v e r e t a i n e d t h e e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l s o f e a c h c a s e , b u t have a l t e r e d
p e r i p h e r a l d e s c r i p t i v e m a t e r i a l t o p r o t e c t t h e anonymity o f i n d i v i d u a l s and
organizations.
 14-2

POSITIONS CORE PROBL&iS COPING ATTEMPTS

Intra-psychic:

1. A s s e m b l y Superintendent Guilt Work a d d i c t i o n

2. Executive Autonomy c o n f l i c t Acting out; projection

contrived inter-
personal c o n f l i c t

Role-person mismatch:

3. M a t h e m a t i c i a n Technical inadequacy D e p r e c a t i o n o f non-

professional s k i l l s ;
cynicism; h o s t i l i t y

4, Sales Analyst Technical inadequacy Dependent b e h a v i o r ;

suppression of
hostiltty; ideal-
i z a t i o n o f others

Environmental

5. M e d i c a l Administrator Boundary, p r o f e s s i o n a l Compar t r a e n t a l I -

non-professional zation; over-evalua-
t i o n of non-profession
a l s k i l l s ; dependent
behavior

6. C r e d i t Expediter Boundary c o n f l i c t , I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of
sales-credit conflict; identifi-
cation with i n -
compatible groups

F i g u r e 1. S i x c a s e s o f r o l e c o n f l i c t and t h e a t t e m p t s t o cope w i t h them.

 14-3

T h e s e s i x c a s e s a r e not t y p i c a l o f e i t h e r t h e n a t i o n a l or the i n t e n s i v e s a m p l e s .

Rather, e a c h c a s e i s " e x t r e m e " on some d i m e n s i o n d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r - - a n o r g a n i z a t i o n -

a l v a r i a b l e shown t o be stressful, t h e amount o f r e s u l t i n g s t r a i n , or a p e r s o n a l i t y

v a r i a b l e r e l e v a n t to understanding r e a c t i o n s to r o l e c o n f l i c t . Two of t h e s e c a s e s

represent i n t r i g u i n g combinations of s u c h v a r i a b l e s : Medical A d m i n i s t r a t o r works

u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h r o l e c o n f l i c t , y e t s c o r e s low on t e n s i o n ; A s s e m b l y

Superintendent i s h i g h on t e n s i o n but i s exposed to l i t t l e objective role conflict.

Not o n l y a r e t h e s e c a s e s extreme; i n e a c h o f them t h e c o n f l i c t a p p e a r s to be

of long d u r a t i o n , c h r o n i c r a t h e r than a c u t e . We do n o t d e a l h e r e w i t h conflicts

w h i c h s p r i n g up and a r e s o l v e d i n a s i n g l e day, so t h a t t h e f o c a l p e r s o n ( P ) goes

home w i t h a c l e a n d e s k and wholesome s p i r i t . We a r e concerned instead with P's

long-term s t r u g g l e s w i t h h i m s e l f and h i s j o b e n v i r o n m e n t , and we view these a t a

moment i n w h i c h the c o n f l i c t i n g f o r c e s seem t o h a v e r e a c h e d an e q u i l i b r i u m o f some

stability.

I n e x a m i n i n g t h e s e s i x c a s e s , we do n o t s e e k to p r e s e n t a grab-bag o f coping

m e c h a n i s m s from w h i c h one c a n p i c k and c h o o s e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d e v i c e the n e x t time

he i s under s t r e s s . Our e m p h a s i s i s on long-term coping styles, ego-syntonic

behavior o r i e n t a t i o n s which guide the a p p l i c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c s o l u t i o n s t o concrete

problems. The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s u c h a n o t i o n a s " s t y l e " does n o t mean, however,

t h a t we a r e c a s t i n g our l o t w h o l l y w i t h t h o s e who maintain t h a t an individual

always a p p l i e s t h e same c o p i n g mechanisms t o v a r y i n g s t r e s s e s r a t h e r t h a n freely

employing the s o l u t i o n which best f i t s t h e s p e c i f i c problem. Our p o s i t i o n here as

earlier i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s , by d i n t o f c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e r e -

stricted i n t h e i r c h o i c e of s i t u a t i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e coping t a c t i c s - - m u c h i n the

way t h a t " c h a r a c t e r , " i n the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c sense, i s thought to l i m i t the choice

of s i t u a t i o n a l l y appropriate defenses. Were one t o a s k us "How do I solve this

p r o b l e m ? " we would n o t o n l y h a v e t o a s k "What i s t h e p r o b l e m ? " b u t a l s o "Who are

 14-4

y o u ? " - - l e s t we p r o f f e r an e g o - a l i e n solution.

The p a r a d o x of t h e p h r a s e " e g o - a l i e n s o l u t i o n " r e m i n d s us that the analysis

of c o p i n g must not o n l y c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h a problem and i t s s o l u t i o n but must

also consider the c o s t s of t h i s solution. S u c h c o s t s w i l l be r e c k o n e d m a i n l y with

reference to three systems: P's personality; the network of h i s interpersonal

relations on the j o b ; and the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n w h i c h he works.

Central to t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of coping behavior i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between

"core" and " d e r i v a t i v e " problems. The t a s k of coping i s not c o m p l e t e when a person

has d e a l t w i t h an o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t and h i s own a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n to t h i s con-

flict, s i n c e s u c h c o p i n g may i t s e l f upset a previous equilibrium of forces and

engender a new s e t of c o n f l i c t s . O n l y a f t e r P has b r o u g h t a l l s u c h f o r c e s back

Into equilibrium c a n h i s c o p i n g be termed i n any way successful. A core problem

will be regarded i n the following pages a s t h a t problem to w h i c h P's defensive

maneuvers a r e p r i m a r i l y o r i e n t e d . A d e r i v a t i v e problem w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d as that

problem w h i c h i s c r e a t e d a s a r e s u l t o f P's primary coping behavior. A given

c o r e p r o b l e m may c r e a t e any number o f d e r i v a t i v e p r o b l e m s , depending on the

s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s u s e d to cope w i t h i t and the p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the

personal and environmental e q u i l i b r i a which are upset i n t h i s coping process.

The cases treated i n t h i s chapter represent three t y p e s of core problems.

I n the first p a i r of c a s e s , the c o r e problem i s p r i m a r i l y an intrapsychic dif-

f i c u l t y which i s acted out i n t h e work e n v i r o n m e n t . I n the second p a i r o f cases

t h e c o r e p r o b l e m i s a m i s m a t c h between t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a r o l e and the

c a p a b i l i t i e s of the occupant of that r o l e . I n the t h i r d p a i r of c a s e s , the core

p r o b l e m e x i s t s p r i n c i p a l l y i n the o b j e c t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t . This tripartite

classification i s relative, s i n c e few difficulties fall completely into one

category. J u s t as o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s feed i n t o t h e f a n t a s i e s of one person

( E x e c u t i v e ) who a c t s out h i s p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t s on the job, so do the ambition

and i d i o s y n c r a t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a second P ( C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r ) aggravate the

 14-5

o b j e c t i v e s t r e s s e s o f a touchy p o s i t i o n on a d e p a r t m e n t a l boundary.

S i m i l a r c o r e p r o b l e m s w i l l be s e e n t o evoke d i s s i m i l a r d e r i v a t i v e problems

by v i r t u e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c o p i n g mechanisms employed ( t h e c a s e o f Mathematician

vs. that of S a l e s A n a l y s t ) . C o n v e r s e l y , d i s s i m i l a r c o r e problems w i l l , a s a

r e s u l t o f the attempted s o l u t i o n s t o them, be s e e n to g e n e r a t e s i m i l a r deriv-

a t i v e p r o b l e m s ( t h e s u p e r v i s o r y d i f f i c u l t i e s o f S a l e s A n a l y s t and Medical

Administrator).

The study of coping w i t h s t r e s s i s , t h e r e f o r e , n o t c o n f i n e d t o the d i s c o v e r y

of r a t i o n a l s o l u t i o n s t o t r a n s i e n t p r o b l e m s . U l t i m a t e l y c o p i n g a n a l y s i s must

p l a c e c o p i n g w i t h i n a framework w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e c o r e

problem, t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f p r o b l e m - s o l v e r , t h e d e r i v a t i v e problems evoked, and

the u l t i m a t e c o s t s of the s o l u t i o n to t h e i n t r a p s y c h i c , Interpersonal and

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l systems. Moreover, t h e s t u d y o f c o p i n g c a n n o t be c o n f i n e d t o

e f f e c t i v e coping behavior. Coping attempts a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y s u c c e s s f u l . The

coping concept i s d e f i n e d by t h e b e h a v i o r s subsumed u n d e r i t , n o t by t h e s u c c e s s

of such b e h a v i o r s .
i

Two Cases I n Which The C o r e P r o b l e m I s P r i m a r i l y Intrapsychic

Case 1 — A s s e m b l y Superintendent

As s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of the t e r m i n a l s e c t i o n of a l i n e for assembling auto-

motive e n g i n e s , t h i s man has c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the f i n a l product

but i s markedly dependent on t h e work o f numerous s u b - a s s e m b l y l i n e s which feed

t h e i r completed u n i t s i n t o h i s a r e a f o r f i n a l assembly. According to Assembly

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h e p r o b l e m s g e n e r a t e d by t h i s p o s i t i o n r e a c h n i g h t m a r i s h

p r o p o r t i o n s , arid h i s i n t e n s e a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s i s not

unreasonable D H i s a m b i g u i t y and t e n s i o n s c o r e s a r e second h i g h e s t o f a l l

persons i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study.
 14-6

To s u m m a r i z e t h e i n c e s s a n t c r i s e s d e s c r i b e d by Assembly S u p e r i n t e n d e n t i s to

rob them o f t h e i r baroque h o r r o r — l i k e a 100-word a b s t r a c t o f The C a s t l e . Assembly

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t speaks a t g r e a t length^-and w i t h l i t t l e apparent p r o v o c a t i o n - -

about t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s he f a c e s . o n h i s j o b . When f o r example h e i s a s k e d "Do you

get r e q u e s t s from t h e o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s ? " , h e g i v e s a few r o u t i n e f a c t s and

v o l u n t e e r s , " T h i s i s about a s r o u g h a j o b a s I ' v e e v e r been c o n n e c t e d w i t h . . . "

Throughout the e a r l y s e c t i o n of the i n t e r v i e w , Assembly S u p e r i n t e n d e n t p a l p i -

t a t e s to t e l l about t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s he had t h a t v e r y morning. I t was difficult

for the I n t e r v i e w e r to c o m p l e t e a l i s t of Superintendent's required activities,

b e c a u s e t h e m e n t i o n o f e a c h a c t i v i t y was a c c o m p a n i e d by a g o r y d e s c r i p t i o n o f

some c o n t i n g e n t problem.

Qs "What o t h e r t h i n g s do you spend y o u r t i m e o n ? "

A: '*Today we were i n t r o u b l e b e f o r e we s t a r t e d . . . "

One might f i r s t g u e s s t h a t a l l was not w e l l i n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s w o r l d from

the fact t h a t he h a s t o work n o n - s t o p f o r l o n g h o u r s under pressure"

" I g e t p a i d f o r work f r o m 8:30 u n t i l 5 w i t h a h a l f hour f o r l u n c h . Now

when I g o t i n today i t was f i v e a f t e r e i g h t , y e s t e r d a y i t was f i v e m i n u t e s
of e i g h t . I t r y t o make i t a t l e a s t 8 And w h i l e we're w o r k i n g I don't
s i t down and r e l a x any t i m e . "

"We n e v e r f i n i s h , b u t I'm n o t k i c k i n g about i t . I f I had t w e l v e h o u r s a day

i n h e r e , I m i g h t b r e a k even w i t h what I would l i k e t o do. L a s t week when I
s p e n t two h o u r s w i t h you, I put i n a t l e a s t a n hour and a h a l f t i m e make-up
f o r w h a t I l o s t d u r i n g t h e day t o t r y t o c a t c h u p . . . I don't know, maybe I
l i v e my j o b . I don't mind i t ; I l i k e what I'm d o i n g . "

Q: ,f
How about f e e l i n g you h a v e too h e a v y a work l o a d , one you c a n ' t finish
In a day?"
A: " I t b o t h e r s me...I w i s h I c o u l d - d o more."

" I n t h i s p l a n t a p r o d u c t i o n roan's j o b i s r e a l l y tough and y o u r e u n d e r

9
pressure
f r o m w h i s t l e to w h i s t l e . "

"I've l o s t my noon h o u r s a l o t o f t i m e s by n o t e v e n r e a l i z i n g i t was noon."

" L a s t y e a r I t o o k t h e j o b o v e r and I o n l y had t h r e e a s s i s t a n t s , and I g o t t o

the p o i n t where I l o s t about t w e n t y pounds o f w e i g h t , and I ' d j u s t r u n up and
down t h e l i n e a l l d a y - "

"I've g o t w r i t e r ' s cramp from t h e g r i e v a n c e s I h a n d l e d y e s t e r d a y . On t h e a s s e m b l y

l i n e where y o u ' r e w o r k i n g by t h e m i n u t e , by t h e s e c o n d , i t ' s n o r m a l , r e a l l y . "
 14-7

Why does A s s e m b l y S u p e r i n t e n d e n t f e e l t h a t t h i s i n t e n s e a c t i v i t y i s n e c e -
ssary? In. a d d i t i o n to the n e c e s s i t y of keeping a b r e a s t of production schedules
and U n i o n p r o b l e m s , he a t t r i b u t e s c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y to t h e f a c t t h a t h i s
j o b i s a " t e r m i n a l " one and h a s , t h e r e f o r e , more t h a n i t s s h a r e o f c r i s e s s

"I'm t h e l a s t d e a l i n t h e a s s e m b l y l i n e , so a l l t h e problems t h a t o r i g i n a t e
i n m a c h i n i n g and o t h e r a r e a s a r e b u i l d i n g up u n t i l t h e y h i t my l i n e . " '

Superintendent maintains that because h i s p l a n t i s s t i l l q u i t e new, a l l the

operational bugs a r e n o t y e t worked o u t ; he a l s o r e g a r d s the c a l i b e r of workers

as lower at t h i s s u b s i d i a r y than a t the parent company. F u r t h e r m o r e , he feels

t h a t he c a n n o t g e t a d e q u a t e r e c o g n i t i o n fromjmanagement' f o r the problems he

facess

" T h e y d o n ' t want t o acknowledge any what we call non-standard conditions,

w h i c h we h a v e a l l t h e t i m e . "

Nor d o e s he h a v e a u t h o r i t y a d e q u a t e f o r t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e problemss

"On some t h i n g s I don't t h i n k I h a v e a s much a u t h o r i t y a s I s h o u l d have-"

But f a r more I m p o r t a n t a r e t h e a m b i g u i t i e s of h i s jobs

"Qs "How c l e a r a r e you a b o u t what p e o p l e e x p e c t of you?"

"As "Sometimes I'm r e a l l y i n d o u b t . "

Part of t h e blame f o r t h e s e a m b i g u i t i e s he a t t r i b u t e s t o management f o r b e i n g

too c a p r i c i o u s i n t h e i r change o f plans.

" T h e y w e r e t a l k i n g l a s t y e a r about g e t t i n g t h i s new model r o l l i n g on t h e

f i r s t o f J a n u a r y , and j u s t e a s i n g i t i n t o t h e p u b l i c t h i s y e a r , so i n 1962
we'd be s a i l i n g down t h e r o a d . But i n s t e a d our f o r e c a s t s w e r e so dead wrong
o n . t h e dang t h i n g t h a t e v e r y b o d y g o t c a u g h t s h o r t . On t h e t r u c k d e a l on my
l i n e , t h e y had t h e same t h i n g . They s e t F e b r u a r y f o r t r u c k s to be a l l r i g h t ,
a n d t h e y w e r e s l o w l y g o i n g i n , and a l l o f a sudden we had to be i n f u l l
p r o d u c t i o n on t h e t r u c k . Maybe i n two h o u r s t h e r e would be f i v e o r s i x
c h a n g e s . You a l m o s t c a n ' t l i v e w i t h a t h i n g l i k e t h a t . "

He i s a p p r e h e n s i v e a b o u t h a v i n g t o p a s s on these sudden changes t o h i s mens

" O c c a s i o n a l l y a guy comes up, maybe I'm g o i n g t o t e l l him we°re g o i n g to do

s o m e t h i n g , and t h e o r d e r was p a s s e d t o me t h a t t h i s i s t h e way w e ' r e g o i n g
t o do i t , and we d o n ' t want i t b r o a d c a s t . W e l l , you g e t a funny l o o k i n
t h e i r e y e s when you t e l l them t h a t , and maybe I l o o k k i n d o f odd a t t h e man
who g i v e s me the o r d e r too...most o f y o u r t r o u b l e s w i t h p e r s o n n e l or w i t h
 14-8

s u p e r v i s i o n of w i t h anybody i s j u s t t h e f a c t t h a t t h i n g s weren't explained

i n the f i r s t p l a c e . "

A d d i t i o n a l ambiguity lies i n d e l a y e d f e e d b a c k about t h e q u a l i t y o f h i s w o r k s

"We g e t f i e l d r e p o r t s . . . a n d e v e r y o n c e i n a w h i l e t h e r e i s something v e r y
g l a r i n g i n t h e r e where y o u c a n s e e w h e r e we s h o u l d have g o t t e n t h a t b e f o r e
i t g o t o u t , b u t we d i d n ' t * "

And c o u p l e d w i t h t h i s i s a l a c k o f f e e l i n g o f c l o s u r e about h i s work e x p r e s s e d a s

a quality-quantity conflict.

" T h e r e i s no doubt about i t - - N o m a t t e r how many e r r o r s we c a t c h h e r e , and a

l o t o f them go o u t , you c a n ' t r e l y on somebody e l s e p i c k i n g them up. It°s
g o i n g t o g e t t h r o u g h , and no m a t t e r how good o u r e n g i n e s a r e b u i l t we c a n
b u i l d them b e t t e r . . I'm n o t g o i n g t o s a y i t ' s u n a v o i d a b l e , b u t i t ' s r e a l l y a
p r o b l e m t o make i t b e t t e r b e c a u s e we've worked w i t h s u c h a time l i m i t on t h e
thing."

In s h o r t , Assembly Superintendent s e e s h i s work e n v i r o n m e n t as f i l l e d with

c a p r i c i o u s l y s h i f t i n g demands w h i c h a r e n e v e r and c a n n e v e r be f u l l y met. Each

day's l o g o f problems i s c a r r i e d o v e r i n t o t h e n e x t a n d t h e f l o w o f m i n o r crises

and s u d d e n changes n e v e r c e a s e s - - l i k e t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e i t s e l f . How d o e s

Superintendent t h i n k h e must keep h i s head above w a t e r ? Work, work, work.

We m i g h t e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d s o f a r a s d e s c r i b i n g a p e r s o n

a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by a g e n u i n e l y s t r e s s f u l environment. B u t t h e above m a t e r i a l s

are based on o n l y I n t e r v i e w and q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s from S u p e r i n t e n d e n t

himself. When we l o o k a t t h e I n t e r v i e w d a t a p r o v i d e d b y h i s r o l e s e n d e r s , t h e

situation is put i n a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e . I n s p i t e o f h i s h i g h w o r r y and

ambiguity s c o r e s , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t w o r k s u n d e r low o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t . We f i n d

r e l a t i v e l y few c o m p l a i n t s about h i s p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s o f 0°s» What i s

lacking i n complaints i n the r o l e sender i n t e r v i e w s , however s i sless important

t h a n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e few c o m p l a i n t s t h a t ARE p r e s e n t . By and l a r g e these

c o m p l a i n t s a r e a l l v a r i a t i o n s on a common theme, t h e n a t u r e o f w h i c h i s apparent

f r o m t h e words o f t h e s e n d e r s themselvesi
 14-9

" I ' d r a t h e r s e e him d e l e g a t e more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s ; he has

a do-it-myself habit."

" I would r a t h e r s e e him d e l e g a t e some o f t h e e x t r a d u t i e s t h a t he h a s taken

u p o n h i m s e l f t o do, t h e r e b y r e l i e v i n g him of t h e c o n s t a n t p r e s s u r e o f being
s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e v e r y t h i n g u n a t happens i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t . .

'*He s h o u l d put more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o n h i s subordinates."

"He does some p r o o f i n g work w h i c h h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s c o u l d do. He s a i d I ' l l

do I t my way and I know i t ' s done. By t h e t i m e I e x p l a i n i t t o him~-and i t
m i g h t g e t l o s t — I ' l l do i t . "

" I ' d l i k e f o r him n o t t o t r y to do e v e r y t h i n g a l l by h i m s e l f . F o r i n s t a n c e ,

we'd be s i t t i n g i n t h e o f f i c e . Mr* Manager would s a y , °I want you and J o h n
a n d B a s i l , and O t t o i n t h e o f f i c e . ' I n s t e a d of t e l l i n g me o r someone e l s e
t o t e l l J o h n o r B a s i l , he ( S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ) goes out and t e l l s them h i m s e l f . "

"Spend more time i n t h e o f f i c e . He has enough a s s i s t a n t s ; l e t others

come t o him."

" Q u i t w o r k i n g o v e r t i m e : one hour a d a y would be enough."

Go home a t q u i t t i n g t i m e .
t9
He s p e n d s a t l e a s t three hours overtime. He
r e a l l y w o u l d n ' t h a v e t o do that."

W i t h t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s b e f o r e u s , we no longer see Superintendent as the

innocent v i c t i m of circumstance he seemed a t f i r s t . He h a s extended h i s activities

to the p o i n t where p r e s s u r e s a r e i n t e n s e — b u t t h e c r u c i a l t h i n g i s t h a t he has

extended them; t h e y h a v e n o t b e e n e x t e n d e d by o t h e r s . Why h a s he e x e c u t e d this

extension? T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e answers to t h i s question.

1. He may be d r i v e n by a m b i t i o n and a d e s i r e to g e t ahead i n the job.

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s r o l e s e n d e r s , however, do not p e r c e i v e him as i n o r d i n a t e l y

ambitious, and h i s s c o r e on our i n d e x of m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s i s a t t h e s a m p l e

median. He h a s not a l w a y s b e e n i n t h e a u t o m o t i v e i n d u s t r y , nor d o e s he ever

speak o f long range c a r e e r g o a l s i n t h i s b u s i n e s s . His j o b - r e l a t e d values

(coded from the second f o c a l I n t e r v i e w ) a r e money, s e c u r i t y , and affiliation; he

has r e l a t i v e l y , l i t t l e reason t o c o m p l a i n about h i s p r e s e n t s u c c e s s i n o b t a i n i n g

any of these values. Nor d o e s he r e c o u n t any episodes i n w h i c h he may have

gotten i n the a r e a of promotion. T h e r e seems t o be l i t t l e p o s i t i v e evidence that

 14-10

he i s being d r i v e n 'by a n y undue a m b i t i o n o f t h e garden v a r i e t y .

2. He may get. a g r e a t d e a l o f i n t r i n s i c s a t i s f a c t i o n out o f h i s work--a

s o r t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l approach to auto assembly.

However, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t never e x p r e s s e s much s a t i s f a c t i o n about, t h e a c t u a l

content o f h i s j o b n o r h a s he any p r e t e n t i o n s about t h e a l t r u i s t i c c h a r a c t e r

o f h i s work. H i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s - r - s u c h a s t h e y are—-come from a j o b w e l l done.

One m i g h t a l s o a d d : a n y j o b w e l l done. Nothing I n t h i s i n t e r v i e w suggests

any f e e l i n g by S u p e r i n t e n d e n t that h i s job i s uniquely s a t i s f y i n g . He " f e e l s a s

though h e ' s p r e t t y w e l l s u i t e d f o r t h e j o b , b u t c o u l d a s w e l l do something else."

It i s n o t involvement w i t h the content of; h i s j o b t h a t l e a d s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t to -

the o v e r e x t e n s i o n of a c t i v i t y d e s c r i b e d above.

3. As a p e r s o n w i t h a v e r y h i g h need f o r c o g n i t i o n - - t h e h i g h e s t i n o u r

s a m p l e — h e may h a v e t o spend a l o t o f t i m e p l u g g i n g t h e h o l e s i n a n ambiguous

environment.

T h i s ' i s probably one i m p o r t a n t source of Superintendent's difficulty. Most

o f h i s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e p r e s s u r e s and a m b i g u i t i e s o f h i s j o b a r e p r o b a b l y

exaggerated. I f one c a n r e a d t h r o u g h t h e melodrama o f t h i s v e r b i a g e , Superintend-

e n t ' s o b j e c t i v e problems a p p e a r no more s e r i o u s t h a n t h e p r o b l e m s f a c e d b y many

o f o u r f o c a l p e r s o n s who a r e f a r l e s s d i s t r e s s e d . Superintendent's d e s c r i p t i o n s

o f t h e I r r i t a n t s i n h i s e n v i r o n m e n t do, however, h a v e a u n i f y i n g l e i t m o t i f .

They a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e , i n h i s view, to u n p r e d i c t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e

environment: confused and c o n f l i c t i n g o r d e r s from o t h e r s ; l a c k o f a u t h o r i t y t o

make h i s own d e c i s i o n s ; sudden c h a n g e s o f p r o d u c t i o n schedules; delayed feedback

a b o u t e r r o r s ; u n p r e d i c t a b l e d e l a y s and e r r o r s i n r e c e i v i n g n e c e s s a r y m a t e r i a l s

or i n f o r m a t i o n from o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s . I t i s partly to r e s t o r e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y

to a n environment p e r c e i v e d a s c a p r i c i o u s t h a t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t dedicates such

Intense activity.
 14-11

It i s accurate but i n s u f f i c i e n t to c h a r a c t e r i z e Superintendent as a person

w i t h a v e r y h i g h need f o r c o g n i t i o n , s t r u g g l i n g i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y

uncertainties.- We h a v e s t i l l t o know why S u p e r i n t e n d e n t has taken this particular!

h y p e r a c t i v e s o l u t i o n to h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s . Why d o e s n ' t h e d e l e g a t e more w o r k t o

subordinates? T h e y c o u l d m a s t e r some o f h i s o b j e c t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a s w e l l a s h e .

A l t e r n a t i v e l y , why h a s n ' t he e i t h e r r e q u e s t e d transfer to another department

(he h a s b e e n i n t h i s j o b o n l y two y e a r s ) o r a t t e m p t e d t o g e t a n o t h e r job e n t i r e l y ?

The first o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s , d e l e g a t i n g more o f t h e work t o h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s ,

r e m i n d s u s o f t h e second major complaint t h a t 0 s make a b o u t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , h i s

B

failure t o be s t r i c t enough w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s . H i s r e l u c t a n c e to be a d i s c i p l i n -

a r i a n probably stems i n p a r t from h i s d e s i r e t o s a t i s f y a f f i l i a t i v e n e e d s on t h e

job. (We h a v e n o t e d t h a t a f f i l i a t i v e v a l u e s c o n s t i t u t e one o f h i s t h r e e m a j o r

reasons f o r working). Superintendent d e s i r e s t o be a h a i l - f e l l o w - w e l l - m e t , and

i n p a r t succeeds; h i s senders s e e h i m a s "making f r i e n d s e a s i l y " and b e i n g "cheer-

ful." He i s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n o r g a n i z i n g o f f - t h e - j o b s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s for h i s co-

workers. He s a y s he gave up w o r k i n g o v e r t i m e on S a t u r d a y s and Sundays b e c a u s e

he found h i m s e l f t a l k i n g t o o much w i t h t h e o t h e r f e l l o w s on t h e s e d a y s . Part of

h i s r e l u c t a n c e to supervise s t r i c t l y ( w h i c h would b e o f b e n e f i t t o h i m i n o t h e r

ways) i s probably a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a f e e l i n g t h a t i t might r e s u l t i n a withdrawal

o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s ' a f f e c t i o n s toward him.

Superintendent's c o g n i t i v e and a f f i l i a t i v e n e e d s , o f t e n o p e r a t i n g a t c r o s s

purposes, provide some i n s i g h t i n t o why h i s f a i r l y r o u t i n e d i f f i c u l t i e s h a v e b e e n

magnified to unusual proportions. T h e s e n e e d s do n o t , however, seem sufficiently

potent t o account completely fors

the extremes o f overwork i n which he i n d u l g e s ;

his former f e e l i n g t h a t h e was "going t o h a v e a n e r v o u s breakdown;"

his l o s s o f 20 pounds ( a l l e g e d l y t h r o u g h o v e r w o r k ) d u r i n g h i s e a r l y months

on this job;
 1.4-12

a v o c a l p a r a l y s i s l a s t i n g two months, a p p a r e n t l y e n d i n g shortly before he

was interviewed.

S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s o v e r - i n d u l g e n c e i n work a c t i v i t y on t h e one h a n d — a n d on the

o t h e r h i s development o f a p a r a l y s i s w h i c h would i n p a r t remove hira from t h e

s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e - - s u g g e s t a tremendous a m b i v a l e n c e toward h i s job. One d e t e c t s

t h e p o l a r i z a t i o n of the o b s e s s i v e - c o m p u l s i v e i n t h e s e extremes, and the answers

t o many q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s — e v e n to t h e e x t r e m e o f a d m i t t i n g a p u r p o s e l e s s

compulsion to c o u n t o b j e c t s — t e n d to bear out this interpretation. He s c o r e s i n

t h e t o p d e c i l e on r i g i d i t y . R a t h e r t h a n any intrinsic positive satisfaction in

j o b c o n t e n t , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s i n t e n s e i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h work seems to r e p r e s e n t a

means o f g u i l t e x p i a t i o n . He d o e s n ' t want t o keep busy; he must keep b u s y . Note

e s p e c i a l l y how he " r e l a x e s " a f t e r work:

"When I go home from h e r e — t h i s h a s worked f o r me f o r y e a r s - " ! m so dead f

t i r e d I don't know i f I c a n t a k e a n o t h e r s t e p . So I e i t h e r go out i n t h e

g a r a g e o r down i n t h e b a s e m e n t - - ! h a v e a workshop i n t h e basement--and I
s t a r t f o o l i n g around down t h e r e , maybe making some dang t h i n g , some p r o j e c t
t h a t I ' v e g o t , o r t a k i n g a l l t h e s t u f f o f f o f t h a t s h e l f and p u t t i n g i t on
t h i s one, and t a k e t h i s one and p u t i t on t h e o t h e r one, r e a r r a n g e I t , and
i n a n hour o r two I come up and I'm a l l r e l a x e d . "

F o r S u p e r i n t e n d e n t r e l a x a t i o n means d o i n g something r a t h e r than r e s t i n g - - e v e n

doing some o t h e r w i s e s e n s e l e s s r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f a r t i c l e s on shelves.

We w o u l d e x p e c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t to work e x c e s s i v e l y h a r d on any job s and to

r e q u i r e u n u s u a l a s s u r a n c e t h a t he h a s done t h e j o b w e l l and completely. In this

r e s p e c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s problems a r e a g g r a v a t e d by h i s p r e s e n t j o b ; s i n c e the

feedback he g e t s about e r r o r s i s g e n e r a l l y d e l a y e d , one can never r e a l l y call

anything f i n i s h e d , and h i s g u i l t i s never f u l l y expiated. He seldom g e t s any

positive f e e d b a c k ; he o n l y knows when h i s group h a s f a l l e n b e l o w a n adequate

level of performance. S i n c e , s u c c e s s i s n e v e r f u l l y c o n f e r r e d by the o u t s i d e

w o r l d , t h e r e i s a l w a y s a r e a s o n f o r S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t o do more. He i s kept going

o n l y by o v e r - w o r k i n g t o t h e p o i n t where he b e g i n s t o s u f f e r from the demands o f

the i m p e r s o n a l " w o r k - f l o w " and i s a b l e to take e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n a g a i n s t this

 14-13

externalized s o u r c e of h i s a n x i e t y . S u p e r i n t e n d e n t would be h a p p i e r i n a j o b where

t h e r e was more s e n s e o f c l o s u r e a f t e r e a c h t a s k , b u t he would be l e s s happy i n a

j o b w h e r e t h e r e was any d e l a y between a s s i g n m e n t s . I n a job w i t h s l a c k periods

he w o u l d r e p e t i t i v e l y c l e a n o u t h i s d e s k r a t h e r than bear t h e agony o f momentary

idleness.

There i s an e l e m e n t of s u b t l e i r o n y i n Superintendent's overextenslon-of-

work syndrome. Some o f h i s work problems a r e o f h i s own making; by d o i n g more

t h a n i s n e c e s s a r y he makes t r o u b l e f o r h i m s e l f . The c r i s e s he c r e a t e s , however,

a r e t h o s e t h a t he i s a l s o a b l e t o s o l v e . H e r e , on a n e l a b o r a t e s c a l e , we seem t o

be v i e w i n g a s t o c k mechanism of t h e o b s e s s i v e - c o m p u l s i v e ' s d e f e n s e repertoire--

undoing.

An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s o v e r w o r k syndrome i s

h i s f a i l u r e t o be a s t r o n g s u p e r v i s o r . We h a y e a l r e a d y s e e n how stern super-

v i s i o n w o u l d be i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h h i s a f f i l i a t i v e n e e d s . But h i s f a i l u r e to

utilize h i s subordinates I s over-determined i n ways w h i c h t i e to h i s o b s e s s i v e -

compulsive behavior. To a s k someone e l s e t o s o l v e t h e problems w h i c h he creates

would b e only i n d i r e c t l y expiating. The important t h i n g from S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s

s t a n d p o i n t i s not merely t h a t t h e j o b g e t s done but t h a t he do the job. To

d e l e g a t e t o someone e l s e , t h e t a s k o f s o l v i n g t h e minor c r i s e s t h a t Superintendent

makes f o r h i m s e l f would r e n d e r the undoing pointless.

From a not-too m a l e v o l e n t environment Superintendent has f a b r i c a t e d - - p a r t in

reality and p a r t - i n p h a n t a s y - - a work s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h he e x p e r i e n c e s a c o n s t a n t

p r e s s u r e , a p r e s s u r e which i s a barely tolerable substitute for s t i l l more t a x i n g

internal conflicts. He h a s a c c e p t e d the d i s p l a c e d l e s s e r o f two evils. But

even t h i s acceptance i s ' flawed. W h i l e he p r o f e s s e s i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h h i s w o r k

and superficially seems to throw h i m s e l f i n t o i t e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y , h i s u n c o n s c i o u s

d e s i r e t o r i d h i m s e l f o f t h e s i t u a t i o n p e r i o d i c a l l y r a i s e s i t s head. He developed
 14-14

a v o c a l p a r a l y s i s w h i c h removed him from t h e job s i t u a t i o n without the removal

"being his fault." He q u i t w o r k i n g weekends b e c a u s e he found h i m s e l f "talking

too m u c h " w i t h o t h e r s who a l s o worked w e e k e n d s . T h a t t h e two b e h a v i o r s which

removed him from t h e j o b b o t h c o n c e r n e d the v o c a l apparatus--but i n opposite

ways—is a c o i n c i d e n c e w h i c h c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a s s i n g u l a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of

t h e same p h e n o m e n a — p s y c h i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l means o f w i t h d r a w i n g from a situation

w h i c h i s a t t h e same t i m e a b l e s s i n g and a horror. Tapering down i n work w o u l d

be impossible for Superintendent. T h a t h i s a t t i t u d e s v e e r from c o m p l e t e i n v o l v e -

ment t o t o t a l w i t h d r a w a l I n d i c a t e s h i s u n d e r l y i n g ambivalence toward h i s p r e s e n t

work situation.

Case 2--Executive

E x e c u t i v e , l i k e Superintendent, attempts to d e a l w i t h i n t r a p s y c h i c dif-

f i c u l t i e s by c o n v e r t i n g them i n t o o b j e c t i v e j o b - r e l a t e d p r o b l e m s . Both men

s c o r e h i g h on p r o n e n e s s t o n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y , but where S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s defenses

a r e d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y a t coping w i t h g u i l t , E x e c u t i v e ' s c o r e problems c e n t e r

around n e u r o t i c c o n f l i c t s .

W h i l e autonomy i n i t s b r o a d e r s e n s e i m p l i e s freedom from c o n t r o l by any

agent, E x e c u t i v e i s concerned w i t h o b t a i n i n g freedom from c o n t r o l by t h o s e above

htm, e s p e c i a l l y h i s I m m e d i a t e s u p e r i o r s . M o r e o v e r , t h e p a t t e r n of e x t e r n a l i z e d

autonomy c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n E x e c u t i v e and h i s superiors are duplicated i n Executive's

r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s own subordinates.

E x e c u t i v e r e p o r t s problems w i t h two s u p e r i o r s — a p r e v i o u s b o s s and his

p r e s e n t one. H i s c o n f l i c t s w i t h h i s e r s t w h i l e b o s s w e r e t h e more e x p l o s i v e o f

the two:

"He was t h e manager o f t h e d i v i s i o n , and X was t h e a s s i s t a n t " manager • ' And h e

r e a l l y b u r n e d me u p . He j u s t c o m p l e t e l y f r u s t r a t e d me. There j u s t wasn't
a n y t h i n g 1 c o u l d do t o make him s e e t h e l i g h t , and he was t h e t y p e o f f e l l o w
 14-15

who was j u s t o p p o s i t e from m e — h e s c r e a m s a t t h e w o r k e r s and d o e s n ' t s c r e a m

at the boss. He t a k e s o u t h i s f r u s t r a t i o n s on t h e p e o p l e who work f o r him
and t h e p e o p l e who a r e r e a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r him. X u s e d t o f i g h t h i m hammer
and t o n g s . F i n a l l y t h e y s e p a r a t e d u s and X d o n ' t t h i n k i t h a s h u r t me a s
f a r a s b u s i n e s s I s c o n c e r n e d b e c a u s e now i t i s p r e t t y g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d
t h a t t h a t i s t h e wrong way t o do t h i n g s and he h a s l o s t t h e b r i g h t l i g h t
for himself. 1 1

" T h a t was r e a l l y a f r u s t r a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e i n my l i f e . And I put up with

t h a t f o r two y e a r s — r e a l l y s u f f e r e d f o r t h a t two y e a r s . "

Q: "And during t h a t t i m e , when t h i n g s g o t tough, you just t o l d him so?"

" Y e s , and he screamed r i g h t b a c k a t me. We h a v e t h e s e p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a -

t i o n s o f a l l p e r s o n n e l , and he gave me t h e w o r s t one t h a t I ' v e had s i n c e
I ' v e b e e n w i t h t h e company. To my knowledge i t was c o m p l e t e l y u n c a l l e d f o r . . .
I e n d e d up t a l k i n g t o t h e department manager about I t , and n a t u r a l l y from
t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n he had t o b a c k up my b o s s . ...It
r e a l l y shook me up, you know, t o have him i n d i c a t e t h a t I w a s n ' t e v e r ^ o l n g
a good j o b a t what I was d o i n g . I t r i e d t o k e e p him i n f o r m e d a s to what
I w a s d o i n g and what I t h o u g h t was b e s t , and he j u s t c o m p l e t e l y o v e r r u l e d me
i n a l o t o f c a s e s when I thought he was wrong. I f o u g h t t o o t h and n a i l w i t h
h i m b e c a u s e I thought t h e y w e r e wrong f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e company.
G e n e r a l l y I found a f t e r a w h i l e t h a t my a p p r o a c h t o him was s u c h t h a t i t made
h i m mad, and when he got mad he couldn°t t h i n k s t r a i g h t and he would p u r p o s e l y
do t h e o p p o s i t e o f what I was s u g g e s t i n g , so I had t o m o d i f y my a p p r o a c h .
And I found t h a t by a v o i d i n g c o l o r e d i s s u e s and i s s u e s t h a t would c o l o r h i s
t h i n k i n g I c o u l d p r e t t y much g e t him t o do what was r i g h t . "

The s i t u a t i o n with Executive's present s u p e r v i s o r i s a t once s i m i l a r and

dissimilar t o t h e one above. Executive r e l i s h e s t h e way he I s a l s o a b l e t o stand

up to h i s p r e s e n t s u p e r v i s o r and s p e a k h i s mind: Of h i s b o s s ' v a c a t i o n h e says:

" I k i n d o f m i s s him, s i n c e he h a s b e e n gone o v e r a week and I don't have'

anybody I can y e l l t o . "

The p u n g e n t way I n which E x e c u t i v e d e s c r i b e s h i s disagreement w i t h both s u p e r i o r s s

in terms o f " s c r e a m i n g " and " y e l l i n g , " suggests t h a t t h e v e r y a c t of disagreement

i s not just a means o f g e t t i n g h i s j o b done b u t c a r r i e s w i t h it something o f a

forbidden thrill. But w h e r e a s E x e c u t i v e p e r c e i v e s h i s p r e v i o u s b o s s a s g i v i n g

h i m a p o o r a p p r a i s a l I n r e t a l i a t i o n f o r h i s s t a n d i n g up to the b o s s , the reaction

of E x e c u t i v e ' s present s u p e r i o r t o r m e n t s him by i t s uncertainty:

"In t h i s connection, note the r e p o r t s of E x e c u t i v e ' s subordinates.

 14-16

" I t h i n k i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o be r e c o g n i z e d f o r t h e j o b t h a t you do. And i f

t h i s isn°t g i v e n a t a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e a f t e r t h e j o b I t h i n k you become a
9

l i t t l e d o u b t f u l about what o t h e r p e o p l e t h i n k o f y o u . And I found i n my

own c a s e I know when I h a v e done what I t h o u g h t was a good j o b and I h a d n ' t
h e a r d a n y t h i n g from t h e b o s s , I a s k e d o t h e r p e o p l e what t h e y t h o u g h t o f i t .
W h i c h was p r o b a b l y a way o f s e e k i n g r e c o g n i t i o n from o t h e r p e o p l e . . . I am
q u i t e u n c e r t a i n a s to how my b o s s w i l l r e a c t to'what I am d o i n g b e c a u s e X
d o n ' t h a v e a good p i c t u r e o f what h i s s t a n d a r d s a r e . I know t h e y a r e h a r d .
T h a t i s about a l l i can s a y . And I wonder i f I'm m e e t i n g them. And' a t t h e
same t i m e I am a l i t t l e w o r r i e d about g o i n g i n t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n I n
p r a i s i n g p e o p l e down on t h e l i n e who I t h i n k h a v e done a j o b w e l l because 9

t h e y may be p e o p l e my b o s s i s c o n s i d e r i n g g e t t i n g r i d o f . 1 1

Executive speaks of h i s "boss" i n q u o t a t i o n marks . h e r e . He describes the

a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e above him a s I n a s t a t e o f f l u x w h i c h c r e a t e s an undue amount

o f a m b i g u i t y f o r b o t h him and a l l t h o s e he w o r k s w i t h s "boss" i n t h i s case i s only

his acting superior; The a m b i g u i t y c r e a t e d by h i s boss" standards I s but a symptom

according to E x e c u t i v e 9 o f an a m b i g u i t y w h i c h p e r m e a t e s t h e d i v i s i o n . Executive^

ambiguity score i s high, and h i s t e n s i o n s c o r e i s a t t h e top o f our e n t i r e sample.

In Executive's r e l a t i o n with both h i s s u p e r i o r s 0 t h e r e a p p e a r s a common

psychic equation: " I want t o s t a n d up to you s but a t the same t i m e I want y o u r

approbation. I f I do s t a n d up to y o u , you w i l l r e t a l i a t e by w i t h o l d l n g this

approbation." I n t h e c a s e o f t h e e r s t w h i l e manager t h i s w i t h o l d l n g took t h e form

o f a c t i v e d i s a p p r o v a l ; w i t h t h e p r e s e n t manager i t t a k e s the form of unclear

standards of e v a l u a t i o n . I n both c a s e s 8 the o r g a n i z a t i o n I s also perceived as

being a t fault, somehow e n t e r i n g i n t o the c o n s p i r a c y against Executive. In the

former c a s e , the o r g a n i z a t i o n supported the stubborn., s c r e a m i n g s u p e r i o r 5 in the

present c a s e , i t c o n t r i b u t e s to a general ambiguity of which the evaluative

ambiguity is a part.

Two general f i n d i n g s from t h e p r e s e n t data suggest that these c o n d i t i o n s may

n o t be as i d i o s y n c r a t i c as they first may seem. First of a l l B p e r s o n s coded as

strongly seeking autonomy t e n d t o be u n c l e a r about e v a l u a t i o n s o f them made by

co-workers (t«2.24j p<.05)o Second 0 persons seeking autonomy a r e more Inclined

than o t h e r s t o a t t r i b u t e low power t o t h e i r c o - w o r k e r s (t=2.31g p < . 0 5 ) . This low

 14-17

a t t r i b u t i o n o f power may a e r v e t o i n c r e a s e a person°s f e e l i n g s o f autonomy b y

reducing a u t i s t i c a l l y t h e amount o f c o n t r o l o t h e r s h a v e o v e r him in his

p s y c h i c a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d cosmos „ Low a t t r i b u t i o n o f power may also 9 as i n

E x e c u t i v e ' s c a s e , r e f l e c t h i s condemnation of the o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r supporting

t h o s e who would l i m i t h i s a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o l d approbation.

Why s h o u l d E x e c u t i v e assume t h a t h i s a t t e m p t s t o g a i n autonomy from h i s

s u p e r i o r s w i l l be r e c i p r o c a t e d b y d i s a p p r o v a l ? Some a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o

E x e c u t i v e ' s psychic equation concerning t h i s c o n f l i c t c a n be o b t a i n e d f r o m an

examination o f h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s own subordinates. S e e k i n g autonomy h i m -

self. E x e c u t i v e i s compelled t o g r a n t a g u a r d e d autonomy t o t h o s e b e n e a t h h i m

(or at l e a s t t o a s s e r t t h a t he does s o ) s

" I g e t a b i g k i c k o u t o f s e e i n g t h e p e o p l e who w o r k f o r me d e v e l o p s w a t c h
t h e i r minds a t work and k e e p a n e y e o n them when t h e y go o f f t h e t r a c k why s

t h e y do, and make s u r e t h e y h a v e t h e r i g h t k i n d o f t r a i n i n g i n t h 6 b a c k g r o u n d

s o t h a t "they c a n make t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n s . T h e r e i s a l o t o f i n t e r p l a y
there., t o o . A l o t of t i m e s t h e y make t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n w h e r e a s I w o u l d
h a v e made a d i f f e r e n t one, and t h e y a r e r i g h t . I t ' s very e x c i t i n g to see
t h e s e young f e l l o w s s t a r t t o t a k e h o l d l e a r n t h e i r jobSo and s t a r t t o
s

p r o g r e s s i n them and come up w i t h good a n s w e r s . When you p e r f o r m a s a

s u p e r v i s o r a s y o u t h i n k i t s h o u l d be d o n e i t r e q u i r e s you g i v i n g a l i t t l e
9

o f b o t h t e a c h i n g and d e v e l o p i n g i n d e p e n d e n c e i n them."

In this and i n other d e s c r i p t i o n s of h i s supervisory t a c t i c s 9 Executive conceives

of h i s s u p e r v i s o r y a c t i v i t i e s as being guided by h o r t i c u l t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s s he

plants h i s subordinates i n appropriate p o s i t i o n s 0 p r o p s them up o r p r u n e s them

b a c k w h e n n e c e s s a r y and w a t c h e s them b l o s s o m . Yet f o r such granting of autono-

my t o o t h e r s . E x e c u t i v e must pay a p r i c e . The s u b o r d i n a t e s he must t r a i n are

p o t e n t i a l dangers to him:

'•The u n c e r t a i n t y b o t h e r s me b e c a u s e y o u a r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o meet p e o p l e
&

c o m i n g i n t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , knowing t h a t t h e r e i s g o i n g t o be more
c o m p e t i t i o n c o m i n g — b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d p e o p l e and r e a l s h a r p h e a d s : T h i s i s
D

b e t t e r f o r t h e company. T h e r e i s no doubt about t h a t . B u t you a r e g e t t i n g

i n t o a s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e i s l o t s s t i f f e r c o m p e t i t i o n t h a n you had i n t h e
p a s t . T h i s means t h a t y o u a r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o work a" l o t h a r d e r . And i f
y o u °ve b e e n w o r k i n g h a r d a l l along;, you wonder i f you a r e r e a l l y a d e q u a t e
f o r the j o b . T h i s bothers me."
 14-18

F o r maximum e f f i c i e n c y and f o r h e i g h t e n e d p r o d u c t i v i t y i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t
, r

y o u h a v e t o s e e t o i t t h a t p e o p l e who come i n a r e s u c h t h a t e v e n t u a l l y t h e y
w i l l b e p o s s i b l e rivals«"

The subordinates t o whom E x e c u t i v e f e e l s h e must g r a n t t h e autonomy h e h i m s e l f

s e e k s a r e p e r c e i v e d a l s o a s t h r e a t e n i n g t h e s e c u r i t y o f h i s own p o s i t i o n , , Possessed

o f s u c h a m b i v a l e n c e toward them, E x e c u t i v e s a c t i o n i s s u c h t h a t h e i s d e s c r i b e d

by others i n h i s c l u s t e r a s "outspoken, t o o c r i t i c a l about p e r s o n n e l , over-

dominating 3 i n c o n s i d e r a t e o f o t h e r s , unready t o a c c e p t t h e v i e w s , etc „ o f o t h e r s " —

c

v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e t e r m s o f d i s a p p r o v a l E x e c u t i v e a t one t i m e o r a n o t h e r in his

i n t e r v i e w a p p l i e s t o h i s own s u p e r i o r s . , That o t h e r s s h o u l d p u t p r e s s u r e on t h i s

e x e c u t i v e who i s p r o n e t o n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y and s e e k s autonomy i s n o t a n i s o l a t e d

phenomenono O t h e r d a t a from t h e I n t e n s i v e s t u d y i n d i c a t e t h a t among p e r s o n s high

on a n x i e t y p r o n e n e s s we f i n d t h a t t h o s e o r i e n t e d toward autonomy a r e s u b j e c t e d

to h i g h e r o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t (t°=3„04j p<„0l) t h a n t h o s e w i t h l e s s e r autono-

my n e e d s o E x e c u t i v e p e r c e i v e s h i s own s u p e r i o r s a s r e t a l i a t i n g a g a i n s t h i s

struggle f o r autonomy b e c a u s e h e p r o j e c t s u p o n them t h e t h r e a t h e f e e l s with

regard t o h i s own s u b o r d i n a t e s ; h e may e v e n b e p r o j e c t i n g some o f h i s own

specific responses t o s u b o r d i n a t e s upon t h e s e s u p e r i o r s 0 H i s d e s i r e s and f e a r s

and h i s p r o j e c t i o n s of these generate i n h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h b o t h h i s s u p e r i o r s and

subordinates I s o m o r p h i c p a t t e r n s o f a man who I s t h r e a t e n e d by h i s s u b o r d i n a t e °s

struggle f o r autonomy and who r e t a l i a t e s a g a i n s t t h i s threat 0

I n h i s attempts t o work o u t h i s autonomy p r o b l e m s 9 E x e c u t i v e behaves toward

h i s c o - w o r k e r s i n ways w h i c h c r e a t e c o n d i t i o n s o f o b j e c t i v e r o l e c o n f l i c t p much

as Superintendent m a n u f a c t u r e d h i s own " o b j e c t i v e " conflicts„ L i k e Superintendent,

Executive tends to re-create h i s i n t r a p s y c h i c conflicts as objective role conflicts

The cases differ s however 9 i n that Superintendent i s a b l e t o cope w i t h these

derivative conflicts i n s u c h a way t h a t h i s company r e a p s some r e w a r d from h i s

overwork^ even though S u p e r i n t e n d e n t pays a heavy p h y s i c a l p r i c e f o r h i s

 14-19

hyperactivity. E x e c u t i v e , on t h e o t h e r hand, h a s o b j e c t i f i e d h i s i n t r a - p s y c h i c

p r o b l e m s i n t o forms w i t h w h i c h h e i s i n c a p a b l e o f d e a l i n g ; n o t o n l y h e b u t t h o s e

about h i m a r e p a y i n g t h e p r i c e o f h i s d e f e n s i v e m a n e u v e r s .

An i n t r i g u i n g b i o g r a p h i c a l footnote to Executive's case i s h i s early family

history, some o f t h e c o n f l i c t s o f w h i c h he may be r e l i v i n g on t h e j o b . Note

e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e d i a l o g u e b e l o w E x e c u t i v e ' s p r o t e s t a t i o n s t h a t w h i l e h e ended

up f o l l o w i n g h i s f a t h e r s c a r e e r path,
9
i t was n o t u n d e r a n y p r e s s u r e from h i s

f a t h e r t o do soz

Q: Was t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t y o u r f a m i l y had i n mind f o r y o u , a n y t h i n g i n

,!

p a r t i c u l a r t h a t t h e y wanted y o u t o b e ? "
A: No, n o t a t a l l .
tr
My f a t h e r was i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e b u s i n e s s h i m s e l f , and
t h r o u g h my r e s p e c t and a d m i r a t i o n f o r him, I — j u s t n a t u r a l l y b e i n g
r e l a t e d t o somebody who i s i n t i m a t e l y I n v o l v e d I n t h i s b u s i n e s s - - I
became " i n t e r e s t e d i n i t . B u t he g a v e me no i m p r e s s i o n one way o r t h e
o t h e r t h a t I s h o u l d go i n t o t h i s b u s i n e s s o r b e a d o c t o r o r l a w y e r
o r a n y t h i n g e l s e . A l o n g t h e l i n e d u r i n g my e d u c a t i o n p r o c e s s I r a n
i n t o t e a c h e r s and o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s who t h o u g h t t h a t I s h o u l d b e a
l a w y e r - - j u s t f r o m t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s o f me."
Q: " B u t y o u f e l t t h a t y o u r f a m i l y would a c c e p t p r e t t y much w h a t e v e r i t
was y o u wanted t o go I n t o ? "
A: " Y e s . T h e d e c i s i o n was c o m p l e t e l y mine. My f a t h e r h e l p e d me a s much
a s h e c o u l d when I f i n a l l y d e c i d e d t h a t t h i s was what I wanted t o do,
and I d e c i d e d a t a p r e t t y e a r l y a g e . "
Q: "About when was t h a t ? "
A: VOh, I d o n t - know. T h e r e was n e v e r j u s t a n y q u e s t i o n i n my m i n d . I
Q

j u s t a l w a y s wanted t o b e I n t h e a u t o b u s i n e s s . "
Qs ' T h e r e was n e v e r a n y t i m e i n y o u r l i f e when y o u wanted t o be a n a i r l i n e
pilot or--?"
A: "Oh, j u s t t h e u s u a l k i d s t u f f . B u t b a s i c a l l y I s t i l l wanted t o b e i n
t h e a u t o b u s i n e s s i n one way o r a n o t h e r . And a c t u a l l y my f a t h e r
a r r a n g e d I t s o I c o u l d go down and work i n a u t o a s s e m b l y one summer, i f
I g r a d u a t e d f r o m h i g h s c h o o l . Y o u know, g e t o u t and be i n d e p e n d e n t .
I n e v e r had a n y t r o u b l e w i t h b e i n g i n d e p e n d e n t . My p a r e n t s w e r e p r e t t y
sood i n t h a t r e g a r d . I mean t h e y n e v e r t r i e d t o h o l d me down o r "any
t h i n g l i k e t h a t . I t r y t o do t h e same w i t h my_ c h i l d r e n - - m a k e them
I n d e p e n d e n t and s e l f - r e l i a n t - - l e t them go o f f on t h e i r o w n 0
M
 \

14-20

Two C a s e s I n W h i c h The C o r e P r o b l e m I s L a c k o f P e r s o n - R o l e Fit

The second p a i r o f c a s e s t o be d i s c u s s e d — t h o s e o f M a t h e m a t i c i a n and Sales

A n a l y s t - - h a v e a s t h e i r common c o r e p r o b l e m t h e s i t u a t i o n o f a n I n d i v i d u a l whose

t e c h n i c a l s k i I s are Inadequate f o r h i s job requirements. S a l e s A n a l y s t compen-

s a t e s f o r t h i s d e f i c i t by a n e x c e s s i v e dependence on t h e s k i l l s o f h i s c o - w o r k e r s .

M a t h e m a t i c i a n might c o n c e i v a b l y have a d o p t e d w i t h p r o f i t a s i m i l a r dependent

s o l u t i o n t o h i s s i m i l a r c o r e problem, b u t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y

prohibit such a s o l u t i o n . He c h o o s e s i n s t e a d a c o p i n g mechanism w h i c h , w h i l e

i t may p r o v i d e a t e m p o r a r y prop t o h i s s e l f - e s t e e m , i s f a t e d o n l y t o c r e a t e

d e r i v a t i v e problems w h i c h f u r t h e r b l o c k a n a d e q u a t e s o l u t i o n t o h i s c o r e d i f f i c u l t y .

Case 3—Mathematician

M a t h e m a t i c i a n i s a s p e c i a l i s t i n m a t h e m a t i c a l problems underlying the

c o n s t r u c t i o n of m i s s i l e tracking s y s t e m s and, u n l i k e many o f h i s c o - w o r k e r s , h o l d s

a d o c t o r a t e i n h i s chosen f i e l d . He i s employed i n t h e M i s s i l e Development D i v i s i o n

o f a l a r g e a u t o m o t i v e company.

The M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n has only r e c e n t l y gained a p o s i t i o n of great importance

in this p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i a l complex. I n t h e s h i f t o f t h e D i v i s i o n from humored

company s t e p c h i l d to major dollar-getter<, Mathematician has been l e f t somewhat

s trended•

T h e c o r p o r a t i o n c r e a t e d t h e M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n a t a t i m e when m i s s i l e s w e r e

becoming t h i n g s o f t h e p r e s e n t r a t h e r t h a n t h e f u t u r e . I n s e t t i n g up t h e

Division, t h e company e n l i s t e d a s key men a c o t e r i e o f s c i e n t i s t s many o f whose

o r i e n t a t i o n s w e r e toward d o i n g " p u r e " r e s e a r c h r a t h e r t h a n more " a p p l i e d ' 1

tasks.

M a t h e m a t i c i a n was l u r e d i n t o t h e company by t h e p r o s p e c t t h a t he would have

p l e n t y o f freedom to pursue h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n c l i n a t i o n s i n the f i e l d of

theoretical mathematics.
 14-21

The ivory-tower I d y l l o f t h e M i s s i l e Development D i v i s i o n w a s , however, short

lived. With the onset of the m i s s i l e e r a i n the l a s t few y e a r s , t h e company was

quick t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e c a p a c i t i e s of t h e D i v i s i o n l e n t themselves t o immediate

exploitation. Accordingly, nourished by c o n t r a c t s from government and o t h e r

i n d u s t r i e d , t h e M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n h a s grown l a r g e . T h e s i z e and c o m p l e x i t y o f

t h e D i v i s i o n s t a f f h a v e grown i n t h e p r o c e s s , and t h e o r i g i n a l c o t e r i e o f

scientists i s now d i s p e r s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , many s t i l l i n key

positions.

I n t h e other r e s e a r c h d e p a r t m e n t s o f t h e company, r e s e a r c h i s p r i m a r i l y

g e a r e d t o a u t o m o t i v e a r e a s and a c o n s t a n t supply o f work i s f e d t h e s e r e s e a r c h ad-

j u n c t s by the manufacturing parent company. I n the M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n the s i t u a t i o n

i s quite different. The M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n , i n order to sustain itself,'must seek

r e s e a r c h c o n t r a c t s from sources outside the parent company. I f contracts a r e not

obtained by t h e D i v i s i o n , i t w i l l become a l i a b i l i t y t o t h e company. To t h e e x t e n t

that the D i v i s i o n I s s u c c e s s f u l a t c o n t r a c t - g e t t i n g and grows I n s i z e , the pres-

s u r e t o g e t f u t u r e c o n t r a c t s grows c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , s i n c e t h e "deadwood" t h e

company w o u l d h a v e t o c a r r y i f c o n t r a c t s w e r e n o t o b t a i n e d i s progressively

Increased.

T h e s e c h a n g e s i n s i z e and f u n c t i o n h a v e p l a c e d new s k i l l demands on t h e

D i v i s i o n s members.
8
No l o n g e r does o n e ' s r e p u t a t i o n c e n t e r around b e i n g a p u r e

researcher with wholly s c i e n t i f i c skills. Now it i s e q u a l l y important to be

a s c i e n t i s t - e n g i n e e r who c a n a p p l y t h e s e skills, a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r who c a n

h a n d l e t h e D i v i s i o n ' s I n c r e a s e d b u d g e t a r y and p e r s o n n e l problems, o r a salesman

who c a n g e t c o n t r a c t s f o r h i s d e p a r t m e n t w i t h i n t h e D i v i s i o n .

We h a v e s e e n ( C h a p t e r 6) how t h e i n t e r p o s i t i o n o f a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary

b e t w e e n a p u r e r e s e a r c h s t a f f on one hand and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , s a l e s and

technical s t a f f s on t h e o t h e r may promote and g i v e form t o c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n t h e

 14-22

r e s e a r c h and n o n - r e s e a r c h arms o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n the c a s e of M e d i c a l

Administrator ( t o be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r ) we shall s e e an a n a l o g o u s boundary b e t w e e n

t h e m e d i c a l and m e d i c a l - s u p p o r t i v e s t a f f s o f a company. I n t h e m e d i c a l department.,

the d i v i s i o n of labor i s q u i t e complete. D o c t o r s a r e e x p e c t e d t o be w h o l l y m e d i c a l

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e e x p e c t e d t o be w h o l l y n o n - m e d i c a l . I n the M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n ,

however, the s e p a r a t i o n i s not so n e a t . The dominant power group I n the M i s s i l e

D i v i s i o n now c o n s i s t s o f men who share the a p p l i e d - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n ,

and t h e y need not be f u l l y versed i n m a t t e r s of pure r e s e a r c h . By contrast,

those whose primary o r i e n t a t i o n I s toward d o i n g p u r e r e s e a r c h , a r e now expected to

be e f f i c i e n t administrators, convincing s a l e s m e n , and I n d i v i d u a l s adept a t

channeling their research a c t i v i t i e s into salable applied areas.

In this t r a n s i t i o n , many o f t h e D i v i s o n ' s o r i g i n a l c o t e r i e o f r e s e a r c h e r s have

made a s u c c e s s f u l a d a p t a t i o n . W h i l e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y abandoning t h e i r p u r e r e s e a r c h

orientation, t h e y h a v e e i t h e r d e v e l o p e d t h e i r own a p p l i e d and administrative

skills o r have l e a r n e d t o make e f f e c t i v e u s e o f o t h e r s whose s k i l l s compensate

for their deficits.

M a t h e m a t i c i a n , however, h a s been dragged s c r e a m i n g i n t o t h e a p p l i e d present*

As an i n d i v i d u a l who has a j o b w i t h h i g h c r e a t i v e demands I n an e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h

i s not a l w a y s s y m p a t h e t i c t o s u c h demands he e n c o u n t e r s , many o f t h e problems

described i n C h a p t e r 6 - - b r e a k s i n c o n t i n u i t y of r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y , e x c e s s i v e time

spent I n r o u t i n e f u n c t i o n s , and the l i k e . The a d d i t i o n a l complicating factor

i n Mathematician°s c a s e I s h i s r e l u c t a n c e to l e a r n those non-research skills

which others i n h i s d i v i s i o n h a v e e i t h e r d e v e l o p e d o r compensated f o r . He freely

admits h i s personal Inadequacy I n t h i s respect;

Qs 'What k i n d o f p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do you t h i n k somebody ought t o

h a v e i n o r d e r t o do y o u r k i n d o f work a d e q u a t e l y ? "
A; 'Oh, l°d s a y he ought t o be an o u t g o i n g s o r t o f a p e r s o n . A p e r s o n who
i s w e l l met, a p t w i t h d e a l i n g w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e . A good g r a s p o f t h e
E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e . The t y p e t h a t would make a good b r i d g e p l a y e r o r a
good l a w y e r . And I don°t t h i n k he s h o u l d be t o o o r i e n t e d toward d o i n g
p u r e r e s e a r c h - - i f he w a n t s t o make a s u c c e s s . 1 1
 14-23

Q; "Thinking of the contrary, then, what kind of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

do you t h i n k would lead a person to do poorly i n t h i s kind of work?"
A: "Well, having n e i t h e r of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , nor any r e s e a r c h a b i l i t y —
a person i s l e f t w i t h no legs to stand on»"
Q: "So you f e e l then t h a t perhaps you are not as outgoing as would be
necessary to r e a l l y f i t i n w i t h the type of r e s e a r c h proposal w r i t i n g and-
As "Yes."
Q: "Has that to do w i t h the kind of p o l i t i c k i n g that i s necessary to get
c o n t r a c t s and things l i k e t h a t ? "
A: "Uh huh."
Qs "Now i f i t was your function to f i n d a replacement for y o u r s e l f on t h i s
job, what s o r t of a person would you look f o r ? "
A: " I ' d look f o r a person w i t h e x t e n s i v e hardware experience. I wouldn t B

f e e l r i g h t about h i r i n g anybody on the b a s i s of purely a n a l y t i c a b i l i t y

and r e s e a r c h s k i l l s f o r t h i s j o b "
c

Qs "So i n a way, then, you f e e l the i d e a l person for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r job

would be d i f f e r e n t from you, p o s s i b l y I n background, and a l s o I n terms
of temperament perhaps?"
A: "Yes."

I n the above dialogue and i n other p a r t s of h i s Interview, Mathematician i s

q u i t e open about h i s f a i l u r e to meet the o b j e c t i v e requirements of h i s present

job. Mathematician i s i n no way r e t i c e n t to d i s c l o s e h i s d i s t a s t e w i t h h i s

c u r r e n t l i f e s i t u a t i o n ; he scores high on t e n s i o n and lowest on j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .

I n s p i t e of these ominous i n d i c a t i o n s , Mathematician does not appear i n h i s

i n t e r v i e w to be c o n s c i o u s l y defeated by such s t r e s s e s . How i n such an

unsupportive s i t u a t i o n I s he able to maintain h i s self-esteem and keep h i m s e l f

at l e a s t equal to an uncompromisingly a l i e n environment?

The germ of the answer to t h i s question i s apparent i n the statements of

Mathematician's quoted above. He does not f e e l that he I s a good salesman of

r e s e a r c h proposals, nor does he f e e l that he i s adept i n extending h i s a b i l i t i e s

i n t o a r e a s of applied r e s e a r c h . Yet i n the above quotations and i n other state-

ments not quoted, Mathematician shows t h a t he does not f e e l h i m s e l f I n f e r i o r to

the e f f i c i e n t proposal salesman and a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h e r . I n s t e a d , he a r r o g a t e s to

h i m s e l f a s u p e r c i l i o u s contempt for those who possess what he l a c k s . Those who

are e f f i c i e n t a t s e l l i n g r e s e a r c h proposals which he f a i l s to s e l l are reduced to

the s t a t u s of " b r i d g e - p l a y e r s " and " l a w y e r s ; " those who are adept at applying
 14-24

r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s to concrete, s a l a b l e p r o j e c t s he terms "hardware" men.

F o r Mathematicianj members of the M i s s i l e D i v i s i o n a r e thrown into one of

two c a t e g o r i e s . The "good guys" a r e the o l d guard, the c o t e r i e of pure-research

o r i e n t e d men who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the e a r l y days of the D i v i s i o n . He conceives

of h i m s e l f a s a member of the Old Guard, who, whatever t h e i r current t a s k s ,

a r e b a s i c a l l y oriented toward doing fundamental s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h . He makes

snide remarks about o r g a n i z a t i o n a l newcomers who apply performance standards w i t h

which he i s unable to comply, c a l l i n g them Tohnny-come-latelys" and accusing

0

them o f c r e a t i n g " d i v i s i o n a l bad blood."

Mathematician manages to maintain an acceptable l e v e l of self-esteem by

r e g a r d i n g himself as an i n h a b i t a n t of an i n t e l l e c t u a l V a l h a l l a f a r above the

more c r a s s l y oriented Nlbelungs. D e s c r i b i n g these l a t t e r as of l e s s important

a b i l i t y but more e f f e c t i v e power, Mathematician says that they ares

"...people who can t a l k f a s t and t r y to get by on purely t h e i r a b i l i t y to

t a l k f a s t . There a r e a number of such people I ' v e encountered who have
i r r i t a t e d me. I t ' s f r u s t r a t i n g to have somebody say the wrong thing and
y e t have them be able, so to speak, to keep r i g h t on saying i t - - j u s t
because they t a l k f a s t . "

Mathematician regards himself a s s t i l l a member of the r e s e a r c h e l i t e which

f i r s t worked i n the D i v i s i o n , and h i s r o l e senders i n d i c a t e t h a t they have

been d u l y informed of t h i s membership. He says that having a p r e s t i g i o u s job

i s e s p e c i a l l y important to him, y e t what he terms " p r e s t i g i o u s " he defines not

I n terms of o b s e r v e r s ' o p i n i o n s , but I n h i s own terms. He r e s p e c t s only

i n d i v i d u a l s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n who, l i k e h i m s e l f , c l i n g to the image of e a r l i e r

Division.

Mathematician I n s u l a t e s h i m s e l f from the p a i n f u l l a c k of c e r t a i n requisite-

job s k i l l s by deprecating those who do possess these s k i l l s . Mathematician could

a l l e v i a t e h i s d i f f i c u l t i e s by forming symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h those i n the

o r g a n i z a t i o n who possess that which he l a c k s . But Mathematician s c h a r a c t e r

0
 14-25

p r e v e n t s him from forming r e l a t i o n s h i p s I n which he i s dependent on others--even

i f the dependence i s r e c i p r o c a l . One of the major things he says he looks f o r i n

a job i s independence. He i s perceived by co-workers as h i g h on the independence

f a c t o r ; he i s high on i n t r o v e r s i o n as w e l l . Dependent behavior i s c l e a r l y

i n c o n s i s t e n t with Mathematician's i n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n s .

Mathematician i s thus presented w i t h a dilemma. He has a t hand an e f f i c i e n t

means o f compensating f o r h i s l a c k of c e r t a i n s k i l l s - - f o r m i n g symbiotic

r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h those whose strengths a r e h i s weaknesses. But h i s d e s i r e s f o r

independence preclude h i s adopting such a s o l u t i o n , and h i s contempt f o r those who

do t h u s compromise t h e i r pure-research I d e a l s provides a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h i s

avoidance of t h i s s o l u t i o n .

I r o n i c a l l y , the avoidance of symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p s and h i s contemptuous

a t t i t u d e toward those w i t h whom he might conceivably form such r e l a t i o n s h i p s

c a s t Mathematician i n t o a more a c u t e l y d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n than that which he

seeks t o a v o i d . His i n a b i l i t y to s o l i c i t outside c o n t r a c t s and h i s r e l u c t a n c e

to e n l i s t the a i d of others to s o l i c i t f o r him, makes h i s department p r i m a r i l y

dependent on work a l l o c a t e d by other departments w i t h i n the d i v i s i o n . His

I n a b i l i t y to make h i s department a s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g one has reduced h i s department

to a s u b s e r v i e n t s t a f f group which must go begging f o r i t s work. Others a r e not

unaware of h i s e f f e c t i v e dependence on them. When one r o l e sender i s asked what

power he could invoke to get Mathematician to do something, he s p e c i f i c a l l y

p o i n t s to 'withholding h i s funds." Another co-worker, when asked how he could

make t h i n g s d i f f i c u l t f o r Mathematician i f the l a t t e r refused to do something,

r e p l i e s that he could g i v e Mathematician "a f e e l i n g of i n s e c u r i t y by not g i v i n g

him much to do." With Mathematician's department thus placed i n a r e l a t i v e l y

s u b s e r v i e n t p o s i t i o n , he subjected i n unusual degree to the i r r i t a t i o n s which

go w i t h the attempt to do a h i g h l y c r e a t i v e job I n a not wholly sympathetic

 14-26

environment. Since other departments e f f e c t i v e l y c a l l Mathematician's tune, he

can o f f e r l i t t l e o f f i c i a l r e s i s t a n c e when these departments give him r u s h jobs,

s e t d e a d l i n e s and i n t e r r u p t the c o n t i n u i t y of h i s a c t i v i t i e s .

Not u n s u r p r i s i n g l y 9 Mathematician emerges as a person under u n u s u a l l y high

objective role conflict. A s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of t h i s c o n f l i c t involves complaints

about Mathematician"s a b i l i t y to compromise w i t h the demands of o t h e r s . I t is

s a i d t h a t he:

" I s the i d e a man. He doesn't always see the urgency of the s i t u a t i o n . "

"Very hard to get him to speed up."

"Once he wouldn't spend time on something he thought wasn't worthwhile."

"He should be a b l e to compromise."

"Lacks diplomacy, unable to put himself i n t o the customer's p o s i t i o n . "

"His w i l l i n g n e s s and co-operative a t t i t u d e s could be improved."

"He could be more a c t i v e . I t s hard to get him s t a r t e d and enthused."

B

"His i n t e r e s t s a r e f a i r l y narrow. The whole d i f f i c u l t y i s g e t t i n g him to

do other t h i n g s . "

" I t ' s d i f f i c u l t to get him to w r i t e proposals when he's not i n t e r e s t e d . "

"He should be more ready to c o l l a b o r a t e as a team member, l e s s of a prima

donna."

I n the c a s e to be described next ( S a l e s A n a l y s t ) we s h a l l again encounter a

person who l a c k s c e r t a i n r e q u i s i t e job s k i l l s , but whose r o l e senders a r e more

p i t y i n g than condemning i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of him. A major d i f f e r e n c e between

the two cases l i e s i n Mathematician °s adoption of a c y n i c a l d i s d a i n toward the

d i v i s i o n ' s non-technical s t a f f as a way of reducing the ego relevance of h i s

objective failure. M a t h e m a t i c i a n ^ h o s t i l i t y bubbles c l o s e to the s u r f a c e

throughout h i s i n t e r v i e w . One sender complains about h i s cynicism, and a

second s a y s :

"He can look i n t o a problem and see i t s key p o i n t . That s made him enemies. 11

it°s a l r i g h t to t e l l people when you're wrong, but you b e t t e r not t e l l them

 14-27

when you're r i g h t . The problem i s — h e ' s always r i g h t . He makes people

f e e l uneasy."

I n s u c h a form of i n t e l l e c t u a l one-upping Mathematician uses h i s strengths to

d e p r e c a t e those who a r e strong where he i s weak. Such an a t t i t u d e , w h i l e ego

s u p p o r t i v e i n p a r t , e x t r a c t s i t s p r i c e i n the d e r i v a t i v e problems i t c r e a t e s .

I t puts a burden on Mathematician's a l r e a d y s t r a i n e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , and

makes more remote the p o s s i b i l i t y of h i s g e t t i n g h e l p . Moreover, Mathematician's

s t y l e o f coping transforms i n the eyes o f h i s senders, h i s inadequacy a t doing

c e r t a i n things i n t o an apparent d e s i r e not to do these t h i n g s . Afraid to ask for

h e l p . Mathematician employs a s e t of defenses which prevent others from v o l u n t e e r -

Ing a i d , because they a r e unable to see t h e h e l p l e s s n e s s which l i e s behind h i s

mask o f h o s t i l i t y and r e c a l c i t r a n c e .

Mathematician's I n t e r p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , i n t e n s i f i e d by h i s present job

s i t u a t i o n and h i s m i s c a l c u l a t e d attempts to cope with i t , may be i n part an

exaggerated m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l c r i s e s experienced by others who

share Mathematician °s tendencies toward a n x i e t y and h i s need to be regarded a s

p o s s e s s i n g great t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e . T a b l e 1 presents data only f o r f o c a l

persons who a r e above the sample median on a n x i e t y pronen.ess, and w i t h i n t h i s

group c o n t r a s t s those who have been coded as seeking e x p e r t i s e v a l u e s i n t h e i r

job w i t h those who do not seek such v a l u e s . The t a b l e i n d i c a t e s that persons i n

the h i g h anxiety proneness-high e x p e r t i s e group a r e perceived by t h e i r co-

workers much as Mathematician i s percelved--as being independent, emotionally

u n s t a b l e , and unsoclably s e l f - a s s e r t i v e . Accordingly, the anxiety=prone,

e x p e r t i s e - o r i e n t e d persons a r e subjected t o c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e to a l t e r such

behavior.

0
 14-28

Table 1

Images of Anxiety-Prone F o c a l Persons,

I n R e l a t i o n to E x p e r t i s e O r i e n t a t i o n

High Anxiety-Proneness; High Anxiety-Proneness;

High E x p e r t i s e O r i e n t a t i o n Low E x p e r t i s e O r i e n t a t i o n p
(N=7) (N=I2)

Image o f f o c a l person
a s p e r c e i v e d by others
in cluster

Independence 44.2 39.2 .05

Emotional

Stability 86.0 106.4 .01

Assertive

Self-Confidence 78.0 69.5 .05

Sociability 46.1 53.6 .05

P r e s s u r e to Change
Personal Style 5.3 3.6 .07

I n a d d i t i o n , the behavior of the h i g h - e x p e r t i s e person suggests that under

high r o l e c o n f l i c t , he I s more l i k e l y than o t h e r s to cope w i t h t h i s pressure by

severing Interpersonal t i e s . T a b l e s 2 and 3 I n d i c a t e that under high c o n f l i c t

f o c a l persons who have a strong e x p e r t i s e o r i e n t a t i o n reduce t h e i r communication

w i t h o t h e r s and weaken t h e i r informal bonds w i t h others; these coping mechanisms

a r e used c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s by people who are lower I n e x p e r t i s e - o r i e n t a t i o n . In

the case o f Mathematician t h i s voluntary weakening of i n t e r p e r s o n a l bonds, w h i l e

intended t o cope w i t h a p o s s i b l e l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m , tends d e r l v a t e l y to b l o c k

Mathematician's a c c e s s to people who might h e l p him r e s o l v e h i s core p r o b l e m — l a c k

of r e s e a r c h - f a c i l i t a t i n g skills.
 14-29

Table 2

Mean Communication Scores of F o c a l Persons w i t h Others,

I n R e l a t i o n to E x p e r t i s e O r i e n t a t i o n
and Degree of Role C o n f l i c t .

Degree of Role C o n f l i c t

High Low

High E x p e r t i s e
Orientation 3.91 (11) 6.00 (9) .01

Low E x p e r t i s e
Orientation 4.36 (11) 5.62 (13) n.s

Table 3

Mean Strength of Informal Bonds o f F o c a l Persons w i t h Others

I n R e l a t i o n to E x p e r t i s e O r i e n t a t i o n
and Degree.of Role C o n f l i c t .

Degree of R o l e C o n f l i c t

High Low

High E x p e r t i s e
Orientation 24.4 (11) 40.1 (8) .02

Low E x p e r t i s e
Orientation 25.6 (11) 35.1 (13) n.s.
 14= 30

Case 4 - - S e l e s A n a l y s t

Mathematician i s not the only member o f h i s company whom time has caught up

w i t h and passed by. I n another departments S a l e s A n a l y s t a l s o l a c k s c e r t a i n skills

r e q u i s i t e to h i g h - l e v e l e f f i c i e n c y 0 He a r r i v e d a t h i s present p o s i t i o n by coming

up doggedly through the c l e r i c a l ranks, and was appointed C h i e f S a l e s A n a l y s t a t

a time when t h i s d e p a r t m e n t s primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was transmuting information

about h i s company s y e a r l y s a l e s i n t o forms that could be comprehended by other

9

departments. Over the y e a r s , however, the departmental functions have broadened

beyond simple data reduction, and now i n c l u d e f o r e c a s t i n g s a l e s on the b a s i s of

s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y s e s of previous s a l e s r e c o r d s and v a r i o u s industry-wide economic

variables. The r e q u i s i t e s k i l l l e v e l of S a l e s A n a l y s t s job has changed a c c o r d i n g l y .

8

One of h i s r o l e senders d e s c r i b e s the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n thus:

"You see, Mr. — has a s e r i o u s weakness, a drawback. He s t a r t e d w i t h the

company a s a messenger boy. When he wasn't running errands, he'd hang around
the a u d i t i n g department. F i g u r e s f a s c i n a t e d him. L i t t l e by l i t t l e he
r a i s e d h i s p o s i t i o n i n the company u n t i l today he i s a d i v i s i o n head. He
h a s , however, no t r a i n i n g f o r the j o b . He has picked up a l l he knows
through experience i n the company. But company p o l i c i e s have changed t o
some extento Today they want c o l l e g e men. And i t i s important t h a t men
who a r e i n s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n s should have formal education and some
experience i n the o p e r a t i o n a l end of the i n d u s t r y . He has n e i t h e r , but
the men under him do have these requirements. I asked the company to
a s s i g n him to some f i e l d o p e r a t i o n a l j o b f o r a year or s o — t o give him an
opportunity to l e a r n about f i e l d operations which would help him l a t e r i n
s a l e s a n a l y s i s work. They r e f u s e d . Next, I asked i f he could p a r t i c i p a t e
i n t h e v o c a t i o n a l courses the company o f f e r s . That was refused too. They
f e e l he i s too o l d , that I t i s ten to f i f t e e n y e a r s too l a t e . "

I t appears i n t h i s Horatio Alger s t o r y w i t h a poignant f i n i s h that not only

i s S a l e s A n a l y s t inadequate f o r h i s job i n i t s expanded form but that he may

have been u n d e r q u a l i f i e d from the s t a r t . S a l e s Analyst i s himself aware o f these

limitations:

Qs "Would you l i k e to make a job change i n the f u t u r e ? "

As "Oh, I doubt I t very mucho"
Q* "By job change I mean w i t h i n the company as w e l l a s changing to another
company."
A; "No, I have no a s p i r a t i o n s of job changing w i t h i n the company i t s e l f . I f
a job change d i d come along I guess i t would be the other way around--the
company would change I t f o r me."
 14-31

Qs "Any p a r t i c u l a r "reason?"
As "Well, for'one thing I don't have the background t h a t would enable me'to
get a job t h a t the company would f e e l that I could hold. I t h i n k t h a t
I have gone about as f a r ^ a s I c a n from t h a t standpoint and, w e l l , I j u s t
don't have a c o l l e g e background

L i k e t h a t o f Mathematician, the core problem of S a l e s A n a l y s t ' s job i s a

d i s c r e p a n c y between job demands and personal c a p a b i l i t i e s . The s o l u t i o n s chosen

by t h e s e two men a r e , however, i n sharp c o n t r a s t . S a l e s A n a l y s t ' s p r i n c i p a l coping

response I s described as follows by h i s Immediate superiors

"He knows how t o draw up a l l the r e p o r t s . He knows the a n a l y s i s procedures,

but he knows nothing about the other operations so he must r e l y for h i s
information on subordinates who do have the broader background and higher
education. The c o n d i t i o n i s worrying and embarassing."

T h i s compensation f o r personal d e f i c i t by dependence on others--a s o l u t i o n

anathematic to Mathematician--permeates S a l e s Analyst °s i n t e r v i e w .

When asked what h© does when he f a c e s a job c r i s i s , he r e p l i e s :

" I might mention I t to the o f f i c e manager, or to my comptroller and they

q u e s t i o n me a s to why I t h i n k so and see I f they can't help me i n some way
to a l l e v i a t e i t to some degree...The o f f i c e manager and the comptroller have
o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s of approach to the problem that I don°t have."

He d e s c r i b e s a s i t u a t i o n where h i s work was p i l i n g up a s followss

"As long a s management was aware of i t I f e l t t h a t the only thing was to

0

keep going a s f a r a s I could and then management would provide me w i t h t h e i r

d e c i s i o n so t h a t X could go ahead and handle t h i s problem."

When asked the extent to which he has r e a l i z e d h i s job ambitions^, he r e p l i e s s

"Well,, I would say t h a t i t was through the help o f a l o t of people t h a t I

have worked with through the y e a r s t h a t I have got t o the place where I am
today."

Qs "Thinking o f your own job, what s o r t s ©f personal q u a l i t i e s would a

person need i n order to do i t w e l l ? "
As "Well, I t h i n k he has got to be p a t i e n t f o r one thing and a t t h e same
time I t h i n k he has got to be the kind of f e l l o w t h a t could g e t the most
out of people and not rub them th® wrong way. He%t got to recognize too
that t h i s i s not a one man j o b . . . "

I n a d d i t i o n , h i s l a s t major reported s t r e s s i s one where subordinates wer®

taken away from hims

Qs "Could you t e l l me a l i t t l e , b i t about the time you were I n a s t r e s s f u l

s i t u a t i o n here on the j o b ? "
As "Yeaho The l a s t time I r e a l l y had I t rough was when we had a b i g
personnel swing about two or t h r e e years a g o — f o u r y e a r s ago. I had
 14=32

about three four or f i v e new f e l l o w s and i t was a case of how v e i l we were

8

I n the p o s i t i o n of t r a i n i n g them for t h i s year-end work. I worried p r e t t y

much about t h a t because when the year-end r e p o r t s came around I wasn't
too sure that t h i s wasn't going t o get i n t o a b o t t l e neck o r not, but we
came out of i t p r e t t y w e l l . I r e a l l y sweated that one out."

Both Mathematician and S a l e s Analyst admit of some personal shortcomings i n

a g e n e r a l way. Mathematician, however, deprives them of ego r e l e v a n c e through h i s

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h what he regards a s the only o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e l i t e group o f

any v a l u e . S a l e s Analyst accepts h i s l i m i t a t i o n s more s t o i c a l l y and tends t o

regard h i m s e l f a s lucky t o have gotten a s f a r a s he has. Both, however, f a l l t o

a t t r i b u t e any s p e c i f i c c r i s e s they encounter to t h e i r own shortcomings. For b©th

men the immediate s t r e s s o r s a r e perceived a s created by e x t e r n a l f o r c e s , not

personal d e f i c i t . Mathematician r e a d i l y a t t r i b u t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s t o i d e n t i f i a b l e

co-workers whom he regards as unsympathetic, malevolent, or s t u p i d ; he i s v i v i d l y

aware o f the agents i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n whom he thinks are "doing him d i r t . " In

contrast s S a l e s A n a l y s t " s perception of sources of h i s immediate s t r e s s e s i s not

only e x t e r n a l i z e d but depersonalIzed a s w e l l . According, to S a l e s A n a l y s t 0 no one

i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ever does anything bad; a l l are the Innocent v i c t i m s of

impersonal circumstance. When h e — o r anyone e l s e i n the company-~has t r o u b l e i t

i s always a f u n c t i o n of the f a c t t h a t "the m a t e r i a l did°t flow," or i t ' s "the way

things j e l l " or " i t ' s my t u r n now." Even the foremen i n h i s own c o r p o r a t i o n who

a r e f a c e d w i t h the impersonal demand of the assembly l i n e are more ready than

S a l e s A n a l y s t to a t t r i b u t e breakdowns to human f r a i l t y .

Such an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view i s s i n g u l a r l y appropriate t o S a l e s A n a l y s t ' s

dependent s o l u t i o n to h i s core problem. He needs h i s co-workers too much t©

antagonize them. To prevent himself from antagonizing, he must remove a l l

temptation t o express h o s t i l i t y by p e r c e i v i n g t h e i r f a u l t s a s he p e r c e i v e s M s

own—as generated s o l e l y by circumstance. One can hardly blame a f e l l o w v i c t i m ,

however much he may offend.

 14-33

Not only must S a l e s Analyst suppress the expression of any h o s t i l i t y toward

co-workers 9 but he must go out of h i s way to e n l i s t t h e i r support. In recruiting

t h i s a i d , h i s power bases are somewhat r e s t r i c t e d . He obviously cannot r e l y on

expert power, nor r i s k attempts at c o e r c i o n . His stock of rewards i s l i m i t e d .

C l e a r l y he must i n g r a t i a t e himself through the use of r e f e r e n t power. Little

wonder t h a t the most important q u a l i t y he thought one i n h i s job should have

was the a b i l i t y to get the most out of people without rubbing them the wrong way.

H i s s t a t u r e as a h a i l - f e l l o w - w e l l - m e t introduces d e r i v a t i v e problems, however.

He i s accused of being--

"of a f r e e and easy going manner"

"a l i t t l e more f r e e than he should be"
"not b u s i n e s s - l i k e enough"
"too f r i e n d l y w i t h h i s people"
" l a c k i n g i n the' same p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t i t u d e as the man he i s working w i t h "
"too much one of the boys."

H i s subordinates have two major complaints about h i s behavior: They complain f i r s t

about h i s l a c k of a s s e r t i v e n e s s with h i s s u p e r i o r s . I t I s understandable from

his o t h e r behavior t h a t he i s u n w i l l i n g to oppose the wishes of h i s s u p e r i o r s .

But understandable or not, t h i s r e l u c t a n c e hampers h i s e f f i c a c y as a s u p e r v i s o r ,

because he cannot represent with any force the wishes of h i s subordinates. He

i s i n t h i s way p r o t o t y p i c a l of the s i t u a t i o n noted by L i k e r t wherein a

s u p e r v i s o r ' s e f f i c a c y i n rewarding h i s subordinates i s r e s t r i c t e d by h i s l a c k of

i n f l u e n c e w i t h h i s own s u p e r i o r s .

A second major complaint about A n a l y s t ' s supervisory behavior m i r r o r s h i s

probable ambivalence toward h i s subordinates. They complain t h a t he "over-

s u p e r v i s e s , " i s d e f i c i e n t i n personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s k i l l s and " f a i l s to r a t e

subordinates on i n d i v i d u a l m e r i t , lumping them together." S i n c e many of these

s u p e r f i c i a l l y p a r a d o x i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of S a l e s Analyst as "too n i c e a guy who

i s not n i c e enough" come from the same r o l e senders, the discrepancy cannot be

wholly a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n t points of view from d i f f e r e n t respondents.

 14-34

A p p a r e n t l y both excesses of t o l e r a n c e and toughness toward subordinates a r e

characteristic of Analyst°8 behavior. I t i s l i k e l y that he expresses i n t h i s

way h i s ambivalence toward these subordinates. Since he i s constrained from

c o n s c i o u s l y blaming people who cause him t r o u b l e , h i s i r r i t a t i o n toward them

r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n minor e r r a t i c a l l y h o s t i l e ways. I n a d d i t i o n , the amount of

h o s t i l i t y he f e e l s toward these subordinates i s probably more than the

accumulation of r o u t i n e workday i r r i t a t i o n s . Not only i s h i s s t a t u s somewhat

t h r e a t e n e d by h i s subordinates who a r e o b j e c t i v e l y more s k i l l e d than he, but

i t i s a l s o l i k e l y that he harbors some unconscious resentment toward these

s u b o r d i n a t e s who, for a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, c o n t r o l him r a t h e r than v i c e

versa. Such h o s t i l i t y i s held i n check only by the f e a r t h a t i f he pushes h i s

s u b o r d i n a t e s too f a r , they w i l l withdraw the a i d he needs so v i t a l l y .

Two Gases Wherein Core S t r e s s i s Generated by the O b j e c t i v e Environment

Case 5--Medical Administrator

M e d i c a l Administrator and S a l e s A n a l y s t have a common d e r i v a t i v e problem:

both men r e l y e x c e s s i v e l y on subordinates and as a r e s u l t have somewhat u n s t a b l e

r e l a t i o n s w i t h these subordinates. The sequences of core problems and attempted

coping behavior which generate t h i s u l t i m a t e communality d i f f e r i n the two c a s e s .

While t h e core problem i n S a l e s Analyst °s c a s e was that of a mismatch between

person and r o l e , Medical A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s c o r e problem seems to l i e l e s s i n h i m s e l f

than i n the conditions of h i s j o b . Both the o r g a n i z a t i o n and Medical Administrator

have a c h i e v e d a workable s o l u t i o n to t h i s c o r e problem. D e r i v a t i v e problems have

been c r e a t e d I n the process, but Medical Administrator i s capable of coping w i t h

them a l s o — a t l e a s t i n p a r t .

I n the medical department of t h i s l a r g e company the doctor's r o l e i n c l u d e s

 14-35

two d i s t i n c t s e t s of f u n c t i o n s : p r o f e s s i o n a l ( d e a l i n g with the medical aspects

of the d o c t o r - p a t i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p ) and non-professional (covering paperworks

s u p e r v i s i o n and other a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t a s k s ) . Medical Administrator, who has no

medical t r a i n i n g h i m s e l f , supervises the non-professional a c t i v i t i e s of the

division. He deals w i t h two d i s t i n c t groups of people: the non-professional

s t a f f under him and i n other departments, and the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f of

doctors and nurses. His s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y i s l i m i t e d to the non-

p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f ; the p r o f e s s i o n a l s r e p o r t to the A s s i s t a n t Medical D i r e c t o r ,

a doctor. Medical A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s own s u p e r i o r i s a doctor. Administrator's

major f u n c t i o n s are to provide s e r v i c e s f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l s : budgets,

p u b l i c a t i o n s , records, supplies, s t a t i s t i c a l reports. His job obviously

demands c l o s e co-operation w i t h the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . Administrator a l s o

s e r v e s a s the p r i n c i p a l l i a i s o n between the medical d i v i s i o n and other d i v i s i o n s - -

e«g*» personnel and s a l a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , accounting, and the l i k e .

S u c h a job i s r i f e w i t h p o t e n t i a l boundary c o n f l i c t s . Administrator must

supply h i s subordinates w i t h a p r e d i c t a b l e and manageable work-load, but the s i z e

and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the work load I s determined by the medical s t a f f , over

which A d m i n i s t r a t o r has l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e . He has to manage h i s department i n an

environment which i s i n c e r t a i n c r u c i a l r e s p e c t s beyond h i s c o n t r o l . He p l a y s

a s t a f f f u n c t i o n v i s a v i s the p r o f e s s i o n a l group, but he i s the major l i n e

o f f i c e r f o r the s i z a b l e group of n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s . The locus of c o n t r o l i n

the d i v i s i o n i s with the doctors, y e t Medical Administrator must r e p r e s e n t the

demands o f h i s non-professional personnel, bargaining i n t h e i r behalf from a

p o s i t i o n of r e l a t i v e weakness...a power problem s i m i l a r to that of S a l e s A n a l y s t .

The germ of Administrator's c o n f l i c t l i e s i n meeting the demands of three s e t s of

r o l e senders a t three d i s t i n c t points i n the work-flow s t r u c t u r e - - t h e powerful

p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f who s e t the pace of h i s department and to whom he i s d i r e c t l y

 14-36

r e s p o n s i b l e ; h i s own subordinates whom he must s h i e l d o c c a s i o n a l l y from

e x c e s s i v e demands of the medical s t a f f and t o whom he must g i v e some f e e l i n g of

departmental i n t e g r i t y $ \ and the non-medical d i v i s i o n s who r e c e i v e much of h i s

department's c l e r i c a l output and who a l s o s e t standards of q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y

f o r h i s group.

To what extent does the core c o n f l i c t or i t s rami f a c t i o n s appear full-grown

i n the behavior of Administrator and h i s r o l e senders? The following a r e some

i n d i c a t i o n s o f the overt c o n f l i c t s surrounding him.

1. C o n f l i c t of a u t h o r i t y between p r o f e s s i o n a l s and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s .

Qs "Do you ever have the f e e l i n g that you wish you could j u s t Ignore what
the doctors say and go ahead and do I t the r i g h t way?"
As " Positively."
Qs "But you can't do t h a t very o f t e n ? "
As "Not v e r y o f t e n , u n l e s s , of c o u r s e the Medical D i r e c t o r i s n ' t t h e r e and
s

I have t o make a d e c i s i o n . Then I w i l l do i t , even though I'm not sure

i t may be what he wanted."

Viewing t h i s c o n f l i c t through other eyes, the Medical D i r e c t o r , says o f

Administrators

"He h a s a tendency when l°m not here not to look f o r s i m i l a r a u t h o r i t y i n

the next person who i s i n charge. I n other words, i n my absence he makes
d e c i s i o n s h i m s e l f when he should c o n s u l t w i t h my second i n command."

2. I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s I n the d e f i n i t i o n of Administrator's a u t h o r i t y . Even t h e

Medical D i r e c t o r i s not wholly c o n s i s t e n t a s t o the degree of a u t h o r i t y he

wants Administrator t o assume. One of the Medical D i r e c t o r °s most frequent

c o m p l a i n t s , I n s p i t e o f h i s above c r i t i c i s m , i s t h a t Administrator does not

take on enough I n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n c e r t a i n a r e a s — e v e n I n some a r e a s

w h i c h come c l o s e t o the m e d i c a l - p r o f e s s i o n a l sphere of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

3. C o n t r a d i c t o r y r o l e sendings from s u p e r i o r s .

"I°m t h i n k i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y of Dr. Smith and D r . B a r t o l o and some of t h e

t h i n g s they have wanted done. One w i l l want I t one way, and one w i l l want
i t t h e other way 0 And u n t i l they get together and decide how they want i t 2

nothing i s done."
 14-37

4. Uncoordinated sendings from doctors which r e s u l t i n overload.

"Dr. B a r t o l o may want me to g e t out some s p e c i a l s t a t i s t i c s on p a t i e n t s

f o r him, f o r a t a l k he's going to make or something on that order, and
t h e n one of the other doctors may come I n and want another d i f f e r e n t type
of r e p o r t f o r something he's going t o do."

5. Breakdown i n the communication chain from the doctors to the non-professional

staff 0

A d m i n i s t r a t o r says of h i s boss: " I sometimes don't think he expresses

h i m s e l f c l e a r l y as to j u s t what he does and why. He doesn't know how to
to t e l l what i s r i g h t so t h a t i t comes a c r o s s to me."

On the other end of the communication c h a i n , A d m i n i s t r a t o r ^ subordinates

V o i c e s i m i l a r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h h i s f a i l u r e to keep them informed. From

t h e i r point of view, the blame i s wholly h i s , and they f a i l to acknowledge

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t he may be a hapless communications middle-man t r a n s m i t t i n g

inadequate input.

6. Overload i n rush jobs a r i s i n g from the p o s s i b l e l a c k o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n on

t h e part of the medical staff.

As " I ' l l be requested to do a rush j o b on some c e r t a i n r e p o r t which we could

have been t o l d about weeks ago and done a b e t t e r job perhaps o' 1

Q: "Are you doing anything now to t r y to avoid these r u s h j o b s ? "

A: "Well, I don't think it°s something too much can be done about because
we a r e n ' t aware of the f a c t that we're going to do these t h i n g s . te

A d m i n i s t r a t o r f e e l s that he can"t v e r y w e l l r e f u s e such rush jobs but that

he must protect h i s own subordinates from pressure and d i s r u p t i o n . Consequently

he does many of the r u s h jobs on h i s own time.

But I t i s p o s s i b l e to overestimate the magnitude of these d i f f i c u l t i e s . References

to them by Administrator a r e often coupled w i t h q u a l i f i c a t i o n s suggesting t h a t

the problem I s e i t h e r non-severe or i n f r e q u e n t . The c o n f l i c t of a u t h o r i t y between

p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s mentioned e x p l i c i t l y

only once i n the i n t e r v i e w , and even i n t h i s r e f e r e n c e Administrator does not

d e s c r i b e i t as c o n f l i c t j he j u s t says he "goes ahead and does i t " without

mentioning any ensuing negative s a n c t i o n s . Contradictory sendings from s u p e r i o r s

 14-38

are handled Army-style by Administrator, i n a r o u t i n e and apparently s u c c e s s f u l

manner:

Q: "When you f i n d out that they want i t done i n d i f f e r e n t ways, what do you
do about i t ? "
A: " I t depends on who comes to me f i r s t . I f Dr. B a r t o l o should come f i r s t
I would t e l l him that Dr. Smith had asked me to do i t t h i s way. And
then normally the three of us w i l l get\together and w e ' l l iron i t out
and determine how i t should be done."
Q: "And t h a t u s u a l l y works p r e t t y w e l l ? "
A: "Yes."
Q: "Do you have d i f f i c u l t i e s g e t t i n g together on some of these t h i n g s ? "
A: "No,"

What o f t h e overload of tasks r e s u l t i n g from uncoordinated sendings? According to

A d m i n i s t r a t o r , "Normally they're not urgent^ I t ' s j u s t a question of doing one and

then doing the other. I t ' s r a r e l y any c l a s h e s / ' Does the overload ever r e a c h the

point where he i s unable to meet the demands? He i n d i c a t e s t h a t " i t could happen,

but i t doesn't reach the point where i t does happen." And with reference t o the

r u s h j o b s mentioned above:

Q: How often do you have a rush j o b ? "

!l

A: " I wouldn't say more than three or four times a y e a r . "

I t begins to appear that the problems enumerated e a r l i e r , while p o t e n t i a l l y

s t r e s s f u l , are not so experiencedby Medical Administrator. As the preceding

q u o t a t i o n s i n d i c a t e , he does not recognize any of these problems as being

particularly stressful. One might say t h a t he was denying the s t r e s s generated

by these events, were i t not f o r the f a c t t h a t h i s other s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e i n

many r e s p e c t s too u n f l a t t e r i n g to suggest t h a t Administrator puts up a good

emotional facade i n a d v e r s i t y . Furthermore, he I s not r e t i c e n t i n providing

I n f o r m a t i o n about these problems. While he may be denying the a f f e c t a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s , he does not seem to deny the f a c t of these d i f f i c u l t i e s .

M e d i c a l Administrator i s under high sent pressure from h i s r o l e senders, but

the c o n t e n t of these pressures does not d i r e c t l y concern any of the problem a r e a s

d e s c r i b e d above, except f o r the complaint of the Medical D i r e c t o r that Administrator

 14-39

o c c a s i o n a l l y makes d e c i s i o n s he shouldn't. I n f a c t , there I s v i r t u a l l y no d i r e c t

r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o u t l i n e d above and the content of

the p r e s s u r e s being put on Administrator by h i s r o l e senders; t h e r e are r e l a t i v e l y

few complaints from senders about h i s performance.

M e d i c a l Administrator's o r g a n i z a t i o n has separated the a c t i v i t i e s of the

medical department i n such a way that the s k i l l s of few are overtaxed. The

doctors a r e not expected to be good a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , nor are the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

expected to be doctors. Moreover, there i s l i t t l e doubt on anybody's part t h a t

the p r o f e s s i o n a l medical s t a f f l e g i t i m a t e l y has the greater power. Yet an

e f f e c t i v e d i v i s i o n between t e c h n i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s i s d i f f i c u l t

to m a i n t a i n i n everyday operations, and t h e r e remains i n the medical department

the p o t e n t i a l i t y f o r boundary d i f f i c u l t i e s . What i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g

about M e d i c a l Administrator's case I s h i s personal technique f o r avoiding the

p o t e n t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l - n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n f l i c t , and maintaining i n the process

both h i s own s e l f - e s t e e m and t h a t of h i s subordinates.

M e d i c a l Administrator's p r i n c i p a l technique for s o l v i n g these problems i s

to "cocoon 11
h i s job by:

1. R e f r a i n i n g from extending h i s a r e a s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y any f u r t h e r than

i s absolutely required.

2. Convincing h i m s e l f , and p o s s i b l y h i s co-workers, that he and they have

v e r y s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l s i n areas i n which the doctors are incompetents.

The tendency of Medical Administrator to r e s t r i c t h i s a r e a of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r i n the i n t e r v i e w of the Medical D i r e c t o r who i s in fact,

the only r o l e sender with an a p p r e c i a b l e number of a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t e d complaints

about A d m i n i s t r a t o r . The Medical D i r e c t o r says that Administrator should:

' assume a g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n r e l a t i o n to s u p e r v i s i o n . "

 14-40

''assume a greater degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as to the accuracy and promptness

of p u b l i c a t i o n s * Take a more f o r c e f u l r o l e on g e t t i n g the m a t e r i a l edited
and reviewed by other members of the r e v i e w board."

"be a l i t t l e more a g g r e s s i v e i n g e t t i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t s i n "

"be more aggressive i n h i s work."

On a t h i r d o f Administrator's a c t i v i t i e s , t h e Medical D i r e c t o r wants him t o spend

more time than he does now. Some of A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s extra-departmental role

senders a l s o complain that he i s not extending h i m s e l f as much a s he should: A

member o f the personnel department t h i n k s he should attend personnel meetings more

o f t e n and spend more time i n s u p e r v i s i o n ; a r o l e sender from s a l e s says Administrator

should "...show a l i t t l e more i n i t i a t i v e . Sometimes you ask him a question which

I know he could answer, but h e ' l l go to someone e l s e . " T h i s shying away from

decision-making i s an acute source of s t r e s s i n the r a t h e r h o s t i l e a s s o c i a t i o n

between A d m i n i s t r a t o r and the head nurse. Administrator complains b i t t e r l y t h a t

the n u r s 3 i s "always bugging him" by running i n t o h i s o f f i c e and asking him "to

make up h e r mind f o r h e r s " the nurse says t h a t Administrator doesn't keep her

s u f f i c i e n t l y Informed on many matters. The nurse, of course, i s on the

p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , and many of her d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e presumably p r o f e s s i o n a l ones.

Perhaps some of Administrator's h o s t i l i t y toward t h i s nurse i s caused by h e r

tempting him i n t o that b o r d e r l i n e a r e a of d e c i s i o n making between non-professional

and p r o f e s s i o n a l that I s most p r e c a r i o u s . When Administrator does make a r a r e

d e c i s i o n I n t h i s a r e a , as we saw e a r l i e r , t h e Medical D i r e c t o r complains about h i s

a c t i n g o u t s i d e of sphere of a u t h o r i t y or competence.

In s h o r t . Medical Administrator has kept the p o t e n t i a l a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t s i n

the m e d i c a l department i n a r a t h e r d e l i c a t e balance by taking up a d e f e n s i v e

p o s i t i o n , r e t r e a t i n g into the cocoon of h i s own s e c t i o n of the department, and not

s t i c k i n g h i s neck out. T h i s coping mechanism has i t s p r i c e , however, i n terms o f

the d e r i v a t i v e c o n f l i c t s i t engenders. The r o l e senders quoted a l l complain about

 14-41

c e r t a i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of t h i s cocooning mechanism--i.e.. Administrator's r e t i c e n c e

to be more aggressive and make more d e c i s i o n s . P r e s s u r e s along these l i n e s

generate part--but not a l l - - o f h i s high r o l e c o n f l i c t s c o r e . The immediate source

of these p r e s s u r e s s however, i s h i s d e r i v a t i v e d e f e n s i v e maneuver, not the core

conflict.

But i s Medical Administrator content t o f u n c t i o n i n t h i s s m a l l , autonomous

second-string universe? How can he maintain h i s occupational self-esteem under

these c o n d i t i o n s ?

Resentment of p r o f e s s i o n a l s by those who work c l o s e l y w i t h them i n an

a n c i l l a r y f u n c t i o n i s not uncommon. Does Medical Administrator express any

resentment of t h i s s o r t ?

Qs "I'm t r y i n g to put myself i n your p o s i t i o n and I would be faced w i t h a

l o t of d i f f i c u l t y i n t r y i n g to s a t i s f y t h e i r (the doctors') s t a t u s and
so on. ' 11

As "Perhaps, say i f you were new i n the department, you might f e e l t h a t way,
and I would say t h a t my a s s i s t a n t p o s s i b l y f e e l s that way--because h e s D

been w i t h us only two y e a r s . And of course, I v e known a l l the doctors

9
B

f o r many years and perhaps that makes the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s • "

Qs "Perhaps you worked t h i s out a long time ago?"
As "Yes."

A d m i n i s t r a t o r , however, does not deny resentment toward the doctor who h e l d the

Medical D i r e c t o r s h i p before the present D i r e c t o r s

Qs "Did you f e e l t h a t he dldn°t have the r e s p e c t f o r the non-professional

people t h a t he ought to have had?"
As " I thought he had very l i t t l e , and i n f a c t , I t h i n k most people i n the
department f e l t the same way. Doctors as w e l l . There was a g e n e r a l
f e e l i n g , you might say, t h a t the employees were j u s t s l l g h t e r s . He
o f t e n remarked, 'Well, these people j u s t aren't c l o s e to t h i n g s , j u s t
do the work, don't think about I t . ' "
Qs " I s t h i s often the c a s e ? "
As " I never ran a c r o s s i t before. T h i s i s the f i r s t time I ever had a
superior of t h i s type. I'm a f r a i d i t ' s most unusual."
Qs " I n some companies w i t h l a r g e medical s t a f f s , I get the p i c t u r e t h a t
some of the doctors look down on the non-professional people."
As " I would say I ' v e run a c r o s s t h i s . "

At one p o i n t i n the i n t e r v i e w , a s i m i l a r resentment toward the present Medical

D i r e c t o r manages to peep through.

 14-42

Q: ''Does he ever t r y to get you to do anything t h a t you consider l i e s

o u t s i d e your j o b ? "
A: "Yes."
Q: "What s o r t of thing would t h a t b e ? "
A; "Wells when he asks me t o go to the camera s t o r e down below and p i c k up a
dozen r o l l s of Kodak f i l m , i f he's going on a t r i p . Something along
t h a t order. That's the c h i e f thing I can t h i n k of off-hand."
Q: "Do'these kinds of things happen v e r y o f t e n ? "
A: "Oh, no."
Q: "Does he look to you as a personal a s s i s t a n t , s o r t o f , as, w e l l as a . . . "
A: " I have the f e e l i n g f r e q u e n t l y , y e s . S t u f f h i s s e c r e t a r y , things I
t h i n k h i s s e c r e t a r y should do, h e ' l l c a l l me i n i n s t e a d , and of course,

I don't say anything about i t . "

T h i s i s t h e only expression of resentment toward the doctors which Administrator

permits h i m s e l f , and here the p r e c i p i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y ego-

b l a s t i n g t h a t even a person i n a more ego-supporting job would f i n d them i r r i t a t i n g .

What resentment Administrator manifests seems calmed by r e s i g n a t i o n and a "what

can you do anyway" a t t i t u d e . He guards h i m s e l f against acute incidents--which

might a c t i v a t e h i s underlying resentment--by minimizing the frequency and

intimacy o f h i s personal c o n t a c t s w i t h the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . One doctor says

of him:
"...he's maybe a l i t t l e formal, a l i t t l e s t i f f - - I mean maybe not q u i t e as
warm and f i r e n d l y as he might be--not u n f r i e n d l y , but you can't joke w i t h
him v e r y much, e t c . You ask him f o r t h e t e c h n i c a l p a r t of h i s job and
t h a t ' s I t , and i f there's some problem you d i s c u s s i t w i t h him, y e s but r

i t ' s u s u a l l y an exchange of information r a t h e r than anything s o c i a l . "

Once more i n Administrator's d e f e n s i v e maneuver of i s o l a t i n g himself and h i s

department from the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f has created a d e r i v a t i v e complaint. But

these a r e only h i s ways of p r o t e c t i n g h i s s e l f - e s t e e m from the onslaughts o f o t h e r s .

Of g r e a t e r importance to understanding Administrator a r e the q u a l i t i e s which he

makes t h e focus of h i s s e l f - c o n c e p t — t h e possession of a unique s e t of s k l l s

which he regards' as p e c u l i a r l y appropriate t o h i s job and important to the

department. H i s i n t e r v i e w i s f u l l of r e f e r e n c e s to h i s unique personal skills

and e x p e r i e n c e , and these r e f e r e n c e s occur too frequently and w i t h too l i t t l e

immediate r e l e v a n c e t o be regarded r o u t i n e commentatary. Faced w i t h the knowledge

 14-43

t h a t he cannot do what the doctors can, Administrator counters with the a s s e r t i o n

t h a t the doctors do not have e q u a l l y e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s which he possesses* This

c o n v i c t i o n not only prevents him from having to face the r e a l i t y of h i s second-

s t r i n g p o s i t i o n but even permits him to sneer a t the d o c t o r s ' incompetence i n

h i s area;

" I n a l l the y e a r s I've worked w i t h doctors, I've never considered them t o

be good business men, or o r g a n i z e r s . "

A d m i n i s t r a t o r a l s o seems, perhaps c o n s c i o u s l y , to have surrounded h i s sub-

department w i t h a s k i l l mystique which keeps the doctors a t a r e s p e c t f u l d i s t a n c e .

He p l a c e s considerable emphasis on the s t a t i s t i c a l work the department does (he

h i m s e l f was a s t a t i s t i c i a n ) , and perhaps t r i e s to "one-up" the doctors i n t h i s

area. One of the doctors interviewed speaks s p e c i f i c a l l y of the s t a t i s t i c a l

reporting %

"He i s d e a l i n g w i t h a subject that I don't know v e r y much about. I n other

words, I don't know much about s t a t i s t i c s ; I don't know how they a r e
supposed to be done, I don't know whether anybody does r e a l l y , but they
come up w i t h procedures i n t h e i r own f i e l d t h a t they know more about t h a n " !
db' I can't be very w e l l too c r i t i c a l of them. I can, I may disagree w i t h
9

i t , b u t I can't r e a l l y say I have a b e t t e r way of doing i t because I don_°_t.

I mean sometimes I don't understand a t a l l . "

One s u s p e c t s that Administrator makes the most of the s t a t i s t i c a l mysteries o f

t h i s job, i n p a r t i a l r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s t the doctors f o r throwing t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l

weight around.

I n sum, Medical Administrator attempts to handle h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s by

emphasizing and fencing o f f those functions which he f e e l s himself uniquely

qualified to handle. Within t h i s p o s s i b l y a r t i f l c a l dominion, he regards h i m s e l f

as the u l t i m a t e q u a l i f i e d a u t h o r i t y and f i n d s some contentment i n s p i t e of the

narrowness of the domain and the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t even w i t h i n i t h i s personal

competence and a u t h o r i t y may be I l l u s o r y . (Two of h i s r o l e senders question h i s

s t a t i s t i c a l competence.)
 14-44

A d m i n i s t r a t o r has applied s i m i l a r techniques to s a t i s f y i n g h i s self-image

w i t h r e s p e c t to long-range c a r e e r g o a l s . He views the s k i l l s of medical

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as very s p e c i a l i z e d and consequently l i m i t e d i n t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y .

Moreover, he does not regard himself as e s p e c i a l l y competent outside t h i s realm.

I n e i t h e r the medical or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i e l d s he i s f a r below the top, but

w i t h i n t h e hyphenated combination of them he f e e l s near supremacy.

We have already touched upon two f a u l t s for which p r e s s u r e i s being exerted

on A d m i n i s t r a t o r : h i s f a i l u r e to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and h i s f a i l u r e to

communicate adequately. The t h i r d , and perhaps major p o r t i o n of the complaints

a g a i n s t him deal with h i s p e r s o n a l i t y . According to s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n (Q s c o r e s )

A d m i n i s t r a t o r I s conspicuously low on a n x i e t y proneness and high on I n t r o v e r s i o n .

H i s r o l e senders see him i n ways not d i s s i m i l a r from h i s s e l f - p i c t u r e , w i t h h i s

a s s e r t i v e n e s s (score on the P u b l i c Image Factory A s s e r t i v e Self-Confidence)

being the lowest i n our sample.

M e d i c a l Administrator i s no expansive go-getter. But, a l l things considered,

h i s l i m i t a t i o n s are q u i t e s u i t e d to handling the p o t e n t i a l and a c t u a l c o n f l i c t s to

his situation. A more a g g r e s s i v e , expansive person could, not have responded to

the p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s of the r o l e by l i m i t i n g h i s sphere of Influence as

A d m i n i s t r a t o r h a s — n o t without chafing a t the b i t nor becoming a petty t y r a n t i n

h i s department. A person more emotionally s e n s i t i v e and anxiety-prone could not

bear the o c c a s i o n a l s l i g h t s and i n t e r m i t t e n t emergencies w i t h the nonchalance

that Administrator e x h i b i t s .

But h i s personal s t y l e , ego°syntonic though i t may be, has nonetheless

generated complaints from h i s senders. He i s accused of not s u p e r v i s i n g c l o s e l y

and f i r m l y enough. S e c o n d a r i l y , he i s accused of not being s u f f i c i e n t l y warm or

understanding, of being too shy and r e t i r i n g w i t h subordinates. One sender

says t h a t he "excels a t handling personnel and i s too good natured," another says
 14-45

t h a t " I w i s h he weren°t q u i t e so shy. He's very b a s h f u l ; q u i t e r e s e r v e d . But

the g i r l s t h i n k he's high hat--whlch he i s n ' t . " To t h i s p i c t u r e of Administrator's

i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s must be added what he c o n s i d e r s h i s paramount source of

stress: Having to d i s c i p l i n e employees. He becomes q u i t e disturbed immediately

before a d i s c i p l i n a r y i n t e r v i e w w i t h a subordinate. And when asked: "What

p a r t of your job do you f i n d most s a t i s f y i n g ? " He s a y s : " I would say my

r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h other people I n the department."

The emphasis that he puts on h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h subordinates both as & source

of p l e a s u r e and a n x i e t y suggests t h a t be has an e x c e s s i v e emotional involvement

w i t h h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s - - p a r a l l e l to the e x c e s s i v e f u n c t i o n a l dependence S a l e s

A n a l y s t has on h i s subordinates. We have seen e a r l i e r how Administrator has made

h i s sub-department i n t o an i s o l a t e d microcosm. Within such a microcosm another

person might have become a petty t y r a n t , but such behavior would be I n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h i s Administrator's personal s t y l e . Instead he has s e t himself up as a

benevolent p a t e r n a l i s t i c f i g u r e who loves h i s wards unduly* he s h i e s away from

s u p e r v i s i n g them c l o s e l y and experiences a n x i e t y when he must d i s c i p l i n e them.

But he seems unconsciously to harbor some resentment toward h i s subordinates; as

p o s s e s s o r s of h i s a f f e c t i o n , they can be perceived as t h r e a t s when they f a i l to

reciprocate i t . T h i s ambivalence i s r e f l e c t e d i n h i s shyness and h i s apparent

a l o o f n e s s i n t h e i r presence, much as S a l e s A n a l y s t ' s ambivalence was r e f l e c t e d i n

e r a t i c a l t e r n a t i o n s between being "one of the boys" and a h a r s h d i s c i p l i n a r i a n .

Case 6 — C r e d i t Expediter

The core problems of C r e d i t Expediter, l i k e those of Medical Administrator,

stem from an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n of labor which imposes a d i f f i c u l t depart-

mental boundary. C r e d i t E x p e d i t e r ' s company has divided and departmentalized two

f u n c t i o n s whose ends &r®, i n the short view, i n i m i c a l - - s a l e s and c r e d i t . The

 14-46

company's u l t i m a t e aim i s not only to make a s a l e but to c o l l e c t on I t a f t e r It

i s made. The company's c r e d i t p o l i c y i s f l e x i b l e , p e r m i t t i n g the unprecedented

e x t e n s i o n of l i b e r a l c r e d i t to c e r t a i n customers i n order to make s a l e s where these

s a l e s a r e considered important. The d e c i s i o n of how l i b e r a l to be w i t h c r e d i t in

order to make a p a r t i c u l a r s a l e i s compleXc and r e q u i r e s considerable i n s i g h t

i n t o both s a l e s and c r e d i t a r e a s 0 To " s i m p l i f y " such d e c i s i o n s and to reduce

the s k i l l l e ^ e l required to make them, the company has made s a l e s and c r e d i t two

autonomous departments, each w i t h I t s own decision-making structure--much a s the

medical and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s were departmentalized I n Medical Administrator *

case. T h i s d i v i s i o n of c r e d i t and s a l e s has transformed c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n d l c l s l o n s

i n t o c o n f l i c t s between departments. No longer i s the weighing of s a l e s

advantages and c r e d i t r i s k s placed i n the hands of a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l who must

compromise divergent I m p l i c a t i o n s a s best he c a n 0 Now the two decision-making

c r i t e r i a a r e embodied i n d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , each o f whom i s i n t e r e s t e d

primarily i n g e t t i n g across h i s p a r t i c u l a r vested I n t e r e s t , that i s "making the

b i g s c a l e " v s . "minimizing l o s s e s from accepting bad c r e d i t r i s k s . "

I n some o r g a n i z a t i o n s the members of c r e d i t and s a l e s departments might be

r e s t r i c t e d to subordinate f u n c t i o n s , w i t h the decision-making power i n

ambiguous c a s e s r e s i d i n g w i t h some o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y above both departments.

Such an a u t h o r i t y does not e f f e c t i v e l y ©xist i n C r e d i t Expediter's company.

I n s t e a d , the company has granted c o n s i d e r a b l e decision-making autonomy to t h e

two departments i n question. I n granting such autonomy i t has made one ambiguous

p r o v i s o a s to the determination of paramount i n t e r e s t : T h i s proviso can be

paraphrased a s : "The i n t e r e s t s of s a l e s always come f i r s t , except where t h e

i n t e r e s t s of c r e d i t a r e more important." Lack of r u l e s f o r d e f i n i n g the exceptions

make the p r o v i s o r i d i c u l o u s a s w e l l as ambiguous. I n r a r e cases the d e c i s i o n may

be made a t higher l e v e l s . But these a l r e a d y overtaxed l e v e l s e x h i b i t g r e a t d e l a y s

 14-47

i n making such d e c i s i o n s , and u s u a l l y s t i p u l a t e t h a t the d e c i s i o n made was not

intended to s e t a general precedent=-which h a r d l y helps the c r e d i t department to

make a d e c i s i o n about c r e d i t when a s i m i l a r problem a r i s e s again*

The c r e d i t department i s thus s e t a g a i n s t another department w i t h goals

f r e q u e n t l y incompatible w i t h i t s own and w i t h somewhat higher power. Credit staff

a r e f o r c e d to operate w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i c y which appears to them

vague, i f not capricious<> The conversion of i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n a l s t r e s s i n t o

Interdepartmental c o n f l i c t has c r e a t e d a number of boundary problems f o r C r e d i t

E x p e d i t e r which were discussed tn Chapter 5. He f r e q u e n t l y f i n d s the s a l e s

department t r y i n g to induce the customer to i n c r e a s e an order while the c r e d i t

department i s simultaneously planning to reduce the amount of c r e d i t extended to

t h i s customer. As a f u r t h e r complication, C r e d i t Expediter frequently i s asked to

a s s i s t t h e s a l e s department i n making a s a l e to a customer whose c r e d i t he plans

to r e s t r i c t . His r e a c t i o n to a l l t h i s ?

" I t w o r r i e s me. I j u s t can't forget something a f t e r i t ' s done and come 9

back and do the next t h i n g . I t ' s on my mind. I t was on my mind a t three

o ' c l o c k t h i s morning 0 1 woke up t h i n k i n g about i t . "

The a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n of C r e d i t Expediter to these boundary d i f f i c u l t i e s is,

i n s t e a d o f the h o s t i l i t y toward s a l e s t h a t might be a n t i c i p a t e d , ©is® of g u i l t .

Some i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s somewhat a t y p i c a l r e a c t i o n to a boundary s t r e s s may be

obtained by reviewing h i s c a r e e r h i s t o r y . At one time C r e d i t Expediter was an

admittedly ambitious member of the s a l e s department. He saw soms openings a t the

top i n s a l e s , but f e l t he needed "broadening" before he could go any higher i n

that department. To obtain such broadening experience, he switched to c r e d i t ,

presumably a temporary move. Subsequently the ranks tightened up i n the s a l e s

department to the point where C r e d i t Expediter no longer sees any hope of g e t t i n g

back i n t o s a l e s without taking a demotion I n the process; there i s simply no

opening i n s a l e s a t present or i n the near future a t h i s s a l a r y l e v e l or higher.

 14-48

Not only i s Expediter°s heart s e t on someday r e j o i n i n g s a l e s , but he admits that

he does not now, nor did he ever, l i k e being i n c r e d i t work. I n short, he feels

no attachment to c r e d i t , yet f o r s e e s no f u t u r e w i t h s a l e s because of the l a c k

of e q u i v a l e n t openings i n s a l e s and h i s i n a b i l i t y to stomach the demotion he

might t h e r e f o r e have to take i n the r e - t r a n s f e r . The ambition which took him

out of s a l e s i n the f i r s t place now precludes h i s r e t u r n .

Such a coupling of ambition and outgroup i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t e n s i f i e s the

s t r e s s f u l n e s s of an already d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . C r e d i t Expediter, l i k e Medical

A d m i n i s t r a t o r , has attempted to r e s o l v e h i s boundary problems w i t h a t o t a l

a b s o r p t i o n i n the I n t e r e s t s of a s i n g l e group on one s i d e of t h i s boundary.

U n l i k e M e d i c a l Administrator, however, C r e d i t Expediter has c a s t h i s l o t w i t h the

group on the s i d e of the boundary opposite from h i m s e l f .

The obvious d e r i v a t i v e c o n f l i c t s f o l l o w i n g such a s o l u t i o n r e s u l t from the

f a c t t h a t the c r e d i t department I s not populated w i t h people who share C r e d i t

E x p e d i t e r °s outgroup i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The r e s t of the s t a f f are " c r e d i t men"

p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y as w e l l as nominally.

Some of E x p e d i t e r ' s r o l e senders say t h a t he I s "a good man," and "the b e s t

c r e d i t man we've ever had," or that he "should be C r e d i t Manager." But the

senders who say t h i s are a l l from sales , r not c r e d i t . Note e s p e c i a l l y the phrase

"best c r e d i t man fra.'ve ever h a d " a s i n g u l a r l y appropriate compliment from s a l e s

B

I n l i g h t of the f a c t that C r e d i t Manager i s Indeed t h e i r man. Expediter's co-

workers i n the c r e d i t department a r e , not unexpectedly, considerably l e s s

e n t h u s i a s t i c i n t h e i r evaluations of him.

Y e t as much as he might wish to be on the other s i d e , C r e d i t Expediter cannot

wholly d i v o r c e h i m s e l f from f e e l i n g s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y toward h i s subordinates.

As an ambitious and c o n s c i e n t i o u s i n d i v i d u a l he t r i e s to meet the demands of

t h e s e subordinates, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e t h e i r performance u l t i m a t e l y r e f l e c t s on
 14-49

h i s own executive c a p a b i l i t i e s . As a r e s u l t he s u f f e r s pangs of g u i l t born of

compromising the I n t e r e s t s of those who depend on him I n favor of the demands of
the opposing side..»a f e e l i n g not u n l i k e that of a f o o t b a l l player who would i n
s e l f - i n t e r e s t or i n the s e r v i c e of some l a r g e r and l o c a l l y incomprehensible
v a l u e , knowingly run the wrong way w i t h the b a l l .

Such a f e e l i n g of g u i l t i s i n t e n s i f i e d by the ambiguous company p o l i c y about

p r i o r i t i e s i n c r e d i t - s a l e s boundary c o n f l i c t s . C r e d i t Expediter views himself as

a down-the-line "company man. 11

He f e e l s that what i s good f o r the company i s good

f o r him. Moreover, he equates the company's best I n t e r e s t s l a r g e l y - - b u t not

completely--with, those of s a l e s . He admits that c r e d i t a c t i v i t i e s are also

important for the company. As a r e s u l t , he cannot make a comfortable d e c i s i o n ;

he i s tormented by the thought that he may have sold out h i s own men, acted

a g a i n s t the b e s t I n t e r e s t s of the company, or deserted old f r i e n d s 0 Such misgivings

are i n t e n s i f i e d by the ambiguity of the company's c r e d i t policies 0

I n the process of i n s t i t u t i n g a boundary between c r e d i t and s a l e s and locating

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r person on that boundary, the o r g a n i z a t i o n has suffered both

l o s s e s and gains. F i r s t , the morale of the c r e d i t department has been weakened,

perhaps w i t h some balancing gains I n the s a l e s morale. The second s e r i e s of

consequences I s more s u b t l e and ironic. I t must be remembered that the impetus

f o r s e t t i n g up the s a l e s - c r e d i t boundary was to a l l e v i a t e s t r a i n on the decision-

making powers of those who would have to weigh complex c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of

sales vs. credit. T h i s boundary created a s i t u a t i o n r i p e w i t h p o t e n t i a l inter-

departmental c o n f l i c t s . But the company chose to p l a c e a t the c r i t i c a l boundary

position an i n d i v i d u a l whose body was on one s i d e but whose s p i r i t on the other.

A potential interdepartmental c o n f l i c t , was thus l a r g e l y transformed into an

actual intrapsychic one. The i r o n y l i e s i n the f a c t that the problem the company

s e t out t o solve by i n t e r p o s i n g the boundary--i.e., to r e l i e v e s i n g l e Individuals

 14-50

of c o n f l i c t u a l d e c i s i o n s — h a s been r e i n s t i t u t e d a f r e s h . Not only has i t been

r e i n s t i t u t e d , but i t has been i n t e n s i f i e d . D e c i s i o n s which might have been

d i f f i c u l t and c o n f l i c t u a l , y e t not n e c e s s a r i l y ego°lnvolving for an i n d i v i d u a l ,

have now taken on the a d d i t i o n a l l y s t r e s s f u l p r o p e r t i e s of being linked intimately

to one man's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s and ambitions.

 Chapter 14

CONCHJSIONS

T h i s has been a s t u d y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and some o f t h e i r u n i n t e n d e d effects

on t h e p e o p l e who work i n them. O r g a n i z a t i o n s were n o t i n v e n t e d , o f c o u r s e , t o

damage t h e i r members, and they are not run f o r that purpose. As one e x e c u t i v e

murmured r e g r e t f u l l y , " I t just comes out t h a t way." I t does i n d e e d come out that

way f o r many p e o p l e ; t h e n a t u r e , the e x t e n t , and some of t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s costly

form o f i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t w e r e t h e s u b j e c t of our research

In c o n c e n t r a t i n g on s u c h s i d e e f f e c t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , however, i t i s e a s y to

fall into the t r a p s o o f t e n o c c u p i e d by t h o s e who deal with i l l n e s s rather than

health. I f one g e n e r a l i z e s from a sample o f t r o u b l e d p e o p l e , t h e whole w o r l d be-

comes disease-ridden.

We reject this tendency. We r e c o g n i z e t h e p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of work and

m e m b e r s h i p , n o t o n l y t o s t a n d a r d s o f c o n s u m p t i o n but t o the m e a n i n g f u l n e s s and en-

joyment o f l i f e . F o u r out o f f i v e p e o p l e c l a i m t h a t t h e y would c o n t i n u e working

even i f t h e y i n h e r i t e d enought money t o make work e c o n o m i c a l l y u n n e c e s s a r y . More-

over, i n e x p l a i n i n g t h i s widespread v i e w most p e o p l e e m p h a s i z e d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of

work t o t h e c o n t e n t of t h e i r l i v e s . They spoke, on t h e p o s i t i v e s i d e , of t h e need

to keep o c c u p i e d and i n t e r e s t e d , and on the n e g a t i v e s i d e o f f e e l i n g lost and

d i r e c t i o n l e s s w i t h o u t work. When a s k e d t o t h i n k of the t h i n g s they would m i s s most

if t h e y w e r e n o t a l l o w e d t o work, more m e n t i o n e d f r i e n d s , "the people I know," than

any o t h e r s i n g l e f a c t o r , (Morse and W e i s s , 1951; W e i s s and Kahn, 1960).

These attitudes reflect a r e c o g n i t i o n of the p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n s of work and or-

g a n i z a t i o n a l membership; they do not i m p l y , however, an i d e a l i z a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r

c o n d i t i o n s o f employment. The m a j o r i t y o f p e o p l e would l i k e to continue working--

b u t n o t a t t h e same j o b ! P e o p l e who a r e bound t i g h t l y i n t o l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s

 14-2

(especially t h e i r lower e c h e l o n s ) a r e most e m p h a t i c i n s t a t i n g t h a t , were t h e y to

continue--to work w i t h o u t economic n e e d , t h e y w o u l d do so i n a d i f f e r e n t j o b . The

p e o p l e who a r e most c e r t a i n t h a t t h e y would c o n t i n u e i n t h e i r p r e s e n t jobs come

from t h e least bureaucratized occupations--the professions and farming. These

responses are consistent with t h e i d e a t h a t work i s i m p o r t a n t , s c a r c e l y l e s s for

the e x p e r i e n c e of w o r k i n g t h a n f o r t h e s a k e o f consuming t h e p r o d u c t s o f work.

Our a s s e r t i o n s about o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and ambiguity are best assessed

against t h i s background. The p o s i t i o n s u n d e r s t u d y i n our intensive research design

were not s e l e c t e d for unusual s t r e s s f u l n e s s , and t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n the national

survey were chosen for r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s , not to dramatize the problems o f organi-

zational conflict and ambiguity. T h e s e p r o b l e m s a r e by no means u n i v e r s a l i n o r -

ganizations; there are o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p o s i t i o n s i n w h i c h harmony and clarity are

the dominant c o n d i t i o n s B We have t r e a t e d c o n f l i c t and ambiguity as dimensions for

the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e s , not as u n v a r y i n g a t t r i b u t e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . We

do a s s e r t , however, t h a t c o n f l i c t and ambiguity as c o n d i t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l life

a r e commonly e n c o u n t e r e d , t h a t t h e y e x p r e s s deep t r e n d s in.contemporary s o c i a l or-

ganization, and that they are I n opposition to s t i l l deeper n e e d s o f i n d i v i d u a l s .

We a s s e r t a l s o t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s of people w i t h their organizational roles

increase as c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y i n c r e a s e , and that these difficulties are expressed

in performance--not n e c e s s a r i l y I n the r o l e i n w h i c h the s t r e s s was experienced,

bur somewhere i n t h e a r r a y of r o l e s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s o c i a l and affiliative

life of t h e p e r s o n - - a s husband and f a t h e r , a s w o r k e r , as f r i e n d and citizen. Where

these expressions will o c c u r , what forms t h e y w i l l take, a f t e r what i n t e r v a l s o f time

and silent pain t h e y w i l l become m a n i f e s t , our r e s e a r c h and t h e o r y knows little,

however. About t h e s e t h i n g s we have much t o - l e a r n .

This has been n o t only a study of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , however; i t h a s been a l s o a

study of h e a l t h - - p r i m a r i l y i n the sense of p s y c h o l o g i c a l well-being and only

s e c o n d a r i l y i n terms o f p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . I n t h i s context, r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity

 14-3

c o n s t i t u t e two stressor conditions out of many which might be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n organi-

zations and putside them. I n other s t u d i e s - r e l a t e d to t h i s research, a d d i t i o n a l

stressors are being considered. These include status and status incongruence, as

when a h i g h l y t r a i n e d and formally educated person Is employed i n an u n s k i l l e d

position. They also include temporal d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s imposed on i n d i v i d u a l s and

- • *- • <.

groups, as among i n d u s t r i a l workers and t h e i r f a m i l i e s who are subjected to recurring

changes I n s h i f t . Another environmental stress on which we are conducting research

i s t e c h n o l o g i c a l obsolescence, and the r e s u l t i n g experience of discovering t h a t a

l a b o r i o u s l y acquired and h i g h l y valued s k i l l , around which there has been investment

of s e l f and the development of s e l f - I d e n t i t y , i s becoming de-valued i n ones organiza-

t i o n and i n the larger society. We are i n t e r e s t e d also i n the e f f e c t s on the person

of negative feedback about the s e l f , as f o r example when a h i e r a r c h i c a l superior in

the course of an appraisal i n t e r v i e w states t h a t performance i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .

We are attempting to discover to what extent i n d i v i d u a l well-being and per-

.i

formance are s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d by stressors of these various kinds, and to what

extent t h e i r e f f e c t s appear t o be d i s t i n c t . We are seeking to i d e n t i f y also the

s o c i a l and organizational conditions which give r i s e to the immediate stressors,

and the q u a l i t i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s which mitigate" the

e f f e c t s o f these conditions.

F i n a l l y , the present research i s a study i n organizational theory, or more

p r o p e r l y , i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n of r o l e theory. We have attempted to

b r i n g i n t o the same t h e o r e t i c a l schema the organization as an ongoing system, the

work group and the I n d i v i d u a l . The key concept i n t h i s attempt has been r o l e expec-

t a t i o n s , those cognitions of relevant other people about what the occupant of a

c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o f f i c e should and should not do. I n these terms, the i n -

f l u e n t i a l communication of r o l e expectations comprise the basic cycles by which

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l performance i s insured; i n the communication of expectations also

we have discerned the immediate o r i g i n s of r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity.

 14-4

We have regarded an organization as made up of an array of overlapping r o l e sets,

each c o n s i s t i n g of the i n d i v i d u a l occupant o f a c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n and those other per-

sons whose behaviors must i n t e r a c t w i t h h i s i n the creation of the organizational product.

We have been interested i n the process of influence from r o l e senders to f o c a l person,

i n the c l a r i t y or ambiguity of the expectations transmitted, and the harmony or con-

f l i c t i n the t o t a l p a t t e r n of the expectations communicated t o any single p o s i t i o n ,

We have been i n t e r e s t e d i n the consequences o f such d i f f e r i n g patterns, and i n the

bases o f power by which the expectations of one person have e f f e c t s on another. We

have wanted also t o learn something of the prevalence and l o c a t i o n of c o n f l i c t and

ambiguity i n the society as a whole*

The t h e o r e t i c a l model f o r t h i s research began w i t h a discussion and diagram of

a r o l e ..episode (Chapter 2 ) , that i s , a cycle of events which can be regarded as i n i -

t i a t e d by the communication o f a set of expectations t o a person from others whose

a c t i v i t i e s are interdependent w i t h his ( f o c a l person and r o l e senders). The role

episode ends w i t h some response on the part o f the person who i s the target of these

influence attempts (communicated expectations). His response, and e s p e c i a l l y the

degree o f compliance which i t s i g n i f i e s , i s observed by the members of h i s r o l e set,

who decide i n turn how t o respond, and thus another cycle begins. The schema i s

equally appropriate f o r i l l u s t r a t i n g ongoing stable states (for example, states o f

c l a r i t y o r ambiguity, c o n f l i c t or harmony) which characterize a series of such cycles

over some stated period of time.

In a d d i t i o n t o these categories of v a r i a b l e s , which include the main causal

sequences about which we have formulated hypotheses, we are Interested i n three

a d d i t i o n a l classes of variables which r e f i n e and extend our basic hypotheses about

r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity. One of these three i s the class of organizational

v a r i a b l e s , which can be thought o f as the breeding ground f o r r o l e expectations.

Another i s the category of personality v a r i a b l e s , which we t h i n k of as modifying

and extending the basic r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n several ways: by mediating the perception

 14-5

of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity, by mediating the e f f e c t s and responses o f a person t o

c o n f l i c t and ambiguity; and by i n f l u e n c i n g d i r e c t l y the perceptions and therefore

the actions of ones co-workers. The t h i r d class of variabl es ..-hy^which':we-'-Axteiid • our-.basic

, ,

f i n d i n g s * ± s ornate £ up t ttt§r-£er s 6nftiL - a gmens lotis , and these' enter°ihtb -6ur- feheoretical"schem
1 1 1 r

i n much t h e same way as p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s : as p o t e n t i a l mediators of the r e l a t i o n -

ship between objective and experienced conditions, as mediators of the r e l a t i o n s h i p

between experienced conditions and the responses which they evoke, as a f f e c t i n g the

perceptions and behaviors o f others toward the f o c a l person, and as being a f f e c t e d

themselves by h i s responses.

The model was i l l u s t r a t e d i n Chapter 2, and that f i g u r e i s reproduced here as

a convenience i n summarizing the research findings i n the several classes o f f e l a -

t i o n s h i p s i l l u s t r a t e d by i t . 1

I n s e r t Figure 1 about here

Let us consider the research findings i n classes as designated by the arrows i n

Figure lo

1* The immediate e f f e c t s of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity

a) Role c o n f l i c t ,

The experience of r o l e c o n f l i c t i s common indeed i n the work s i t u a t i o n . Almost ;

h a l f of our respondents reported being caught " i n the middle" between two c o n f l i c t i n g

persons o r f a c t i o n s . These c o n f l i c t s are usually h i e r a r c h i c a l ; 88 per cent of the

people i n v o l v e d i n them report :at least one party t o the c o n f l i c t as being above them

i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Somewhat less than h a l f report that one of the c o n f l i c t i n g

p a r t i e s i s outside the organization. One o f the dominant forms o f r o l e c o n f l i c t is

overload, which can be thought o f as a c o n f l i c t among legitimate tasks, or a problem

.„ r
i n the s e t t i n g of p r i o r i t i e s ; almost h a l f of a l l repondents reported t h i s problem.

The Intensive study, I n which r o l e senders and f o c a l persons were Interviewed

independently, deals more d i r e c t l y w i t h the causal sequences i n i t i a t e d by conditions

 Personality

Factors

/
B
\
8\

Role Senders Focal Person

Organizational Role Role

>r->
Factors Expectations] Pressures Experience I Response

II III IV

Interpersonal

Relations

p ^ . r p 1 . A t h e o r e t i c a l model o f factors involved i n adjustment t o r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity

 14-7

of c o n f l i c t . Measures o f o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t , as derived from the expectations o f

i n d i v i d u a l r o l e senders, are s t r o n g l y associated w i t h the subjective experience o f

c o n f l i c t , as reported by the f o c a l person, who i s target of incompatible expectations.

These, i n t u r n , are linked t o a f f e c t i v e and behavioral responses o f that person.

For the f o c a l person, the emotional costs of r o l e c o n f l i c t include low job s a t i s -

f a c t i o n , low confidence i n the organization, and high scores on the m u l t i - i t e m index

of tension. The most frequent behavioral response to r o l e c o n f l i c t i s withdrawal or

avoidance of those who are seen as creating the c o n f l i c t . Symptomatic of t h i s i s the

attempt o f the c o n f l i c t e d person t o reduce communication w i t h his co-workers and to

assert (sometimes u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y ) that they lack power over him. Case material i n -

dicates t h a t such withdrawal, while a mechanism of defense, i s not a mechanism o f

solution. I t appears t o reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of subsequent c o l l a b o r a t i v e solutions

to r o l e c o n f l i c t .

b) Role ambiguity

The prevalence o f role ambiguity appears to be approximately comparable t o that

of r o l e c o n f l i c t . Four s p e c i f i c subjects of ambiguity are c i t e d as d i s t u r b i n g and

troublesome i n approximately equal numbers by respondents. These include uncertainty

about the way i n which ones supervisor evaluates ones work, about o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

advancement, about scope of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and about the expectations of others r e -

garding ones performance. Bach o f these areas of ambiguity was mentioned by approxi-

mately o n e - t h i r d of the respondents. I n a l l , about two persons out of f i v e considered

that they were given i n s u f f i c i e n t information t o perform t h e i r jobs adequately.

Among the major sources of r o l e ambiguity about which we speculated were com-

p l e x i t y o f task and technology, r a p i d i t y of organizational change, inter-connectedness

of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n s , and that managerial philosophy which advocates r e s t r i c t i o n

of i n f o r m a t i o n on the assumption that the d i v i s i o n of labor makes broad information

unnecessary f o r most p o s i t i o n s .
 14-8

The i n d i v i d u a l consequences of ambiguity conditions are i n general comparable

to the i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t s of r o l e c o n f l i c t . These i n c l u d e , f o r ambiguity: low job

s a t i s f a c t i o n , low self-confidence, a high sense of f u t i l i t y , and a high score on the

tension Index. There i s evidence, however, that the response of the person to ambi-

g u i t y i s highly s e l e c t i v e . For example, ambiguity regarding the evaluations o f

others does not decrease the i n t r i n s i c s a t i s f a c t i o n of the employee w i t h the j o b , a l -

though i t does decrease his self-confidence and weaken h i s p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r

co-workers.

Organizational Determinants of C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity. The major organizational

determinants of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity include three kinds of role requirements--the

requirement f o r crossing o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundaries, the requirement f o r producing

i n n o v a t i v e solutions to non-routine problems, and the requirement f o r being responsible

for the work of others (Arrow 3) .

Let us consider f i r s t the requirement f o r crossing a company boundary. Both the

frequency and the importance of making contacts outside ones company are associated

w i t h the experience of r o l e c o n f l i c t . Crossing the company boundary i s associated

also w i t h experienced tension, but the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c u r v i l i n e a r ; greatest tension

i s experienced by those who have discontinuous contacts outside the organization. We

propose the hypothesis that i n p o s i t i o n s which require extra-company contacts on a

continuous basis, there are special f a c i l i t i e s or some other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l acknow-

ledgement of boundary d i f f i c u l t i e s which renders them less p a i n f u l .

Hypothetical explanations f o r the stressfulness of boundary crossing are a v a i l -

able p r i m a r i l y from case m a t e r i a l s . I t appears that the person who must frequently

deal w i t h people outside the company usually has l i m i t e d c o n t r o l over these outsiders.

He cannot s t r o n g l y influence t h e i r demands and the resources which they supply t o

him. Moreover, a person i n a boundary p o s i t i o n i s l i k e l y to be blamed by people i n

his own company f o r what his outside contacts do or f a i l t o do. They i n t u r n may

blame him f o r shortcomings i n h i s own company. The d i f f i c u l t i e s of l i v i n g at the

 14-9

boundary of an organization are i n t e n s i f i e d when the boundary-dweller must co-

ordinate h i s e x t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h people I n other departments w i t h i n
the company.

In general, l i v i n g "near" a departmental or other i n t r a - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l boundary

has e f f e c t s very l i k e those j u s t remarked f o r boundaries of the organization i t s e l f .

Nearness t o a departmental boundary and frequency of dealing across such boundaries

are associated w i t h f e l t c o n f l i c t and w i t h experienced tension.

Roles which demand c r e a t i v e problem-solving are associated w i t h high r o l e con-

f l i c t and w i t h tension. The occupants of such roles, appear to become engaged i n

c o n f l i c t p r i m a r i l y w i t h older and o f t e n more powerful i n d i v i d u a l s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

who want to maintain the status quo. Among the major r o l e c o n f l i c t s which persons i n

i n n o v a t i v e jobs complain of i s the c o n f l i c t of p r i o r i t y between the non-routine a c t i -

v i t i e s which are at the core of the c r e a t i v e job and the r o u t i n e a c t i v i t i e s of ad-

m i n i s t r a t i o n or paper work. These l a t t e r , according to the people who f i l l innovative

p o s i t i o n s , are unduly time-consuming, d i s r u p t the c o n t i n u i t y of t h e i r c r e a t i v e work,

and are g e n e r a l l y unpalatable.

There i s considerable evidence that organizations exercise s e l e c t i v e e f f o r t i n

choosing people f o r innovative p o s i t i o n s . People i n such positions tend t o be

characterized by high self-confidence, high m o b i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s , high job-involvement,

low apathy, and a tendency to rate the importance of a job extremely high compared

to the importance of other areas of t h e i r l i v e s .

Supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y emerges as a major o r g a n i z a t i o n a l determinant of

role c o n f l i c t . E i t h e r the supervision of rank and f i l e employees or the supervision

of people who are themselves supervisors appears to have s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t s on the

degree o f o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t and the amount of experienced c o n f l i c t . I n combination,

d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y produce very s u b s t a n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t

and t e n s i o n . There i s a systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p also between rank and r o l e c o n f l i c t ,

 14-LO

as there i s between rank and tension. The o f t e n heard assertion that the lowest

levels o f supervision are subjected to the greatest c o n f l i c t i s not borne out by

these data. Rather, there i s a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which the maximum of

c o n f l i c t and c o n f l i c t experience occurs at what might be c a l l e d the "upper middle"

levels o f management. We I n t e r p r e t t h i s i n p a r t as a consequence of the s t i l l un-

f u l f i l l e d m o b i l i t y aspirations of middle management, i n contrast to the b e t t e r

a c t u a l i z e d aspirations o f top management people.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relations as Determinants of Role C o n f l i c t . The sources of pres-

sure and c o n f l i c t f o r a person can be expressed rather f u l l y i n terms of h i s i n t e r -

personal r e l a t i o n s w i t h these pressure sources. The greatest pressure i s directed t o

a person from other prople who are i n the same department as he i s , who are h i s

superiors i n the hierarchy^ and who are s u f f i c i e n t l y dependent on h i s performance

to care about his adequacy without being so completely dependent as to be i n h i b i t e d

i n making t h e i r demands known (Arrow 6 ) . The people who are least l i k e l y t o apply

such pressures are a person's peers and r o l e senders outside h i s own department.

The kinds of pressure which people are prepared to apply, as w e l l as the degree

of that pressure, vary considerably w i t h t h e i r formal interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p to

the p o t e n t i a l target of t h e i r pressures. Thus, supervisors seem t o r e f r a i n from

e x e r t i n g coercive power where i t might impede the performance of our f o c a l person

and perhaps r e f l e c t upon the supervisor himself. On the other hand, the techniques

used by subordinates to apply coercive power are p r e c i c e l y those which threaten the

e f f i c i e n c y of the organization. They include the withholding of a i d and information.

When a person i s surrounded by others who are h i g h l y dependent on him and who

have h i g h power over him and exert high pressure on him, h i s response i s t y p i c a l l y

one of apathy and withdrawal (Arrow 7). Moreover, under such circumstances, his

experience of r o l e c o n f l i c t i s very high and h i s job s a t i s f a c t i o n correspondingly

reduced. Emotionally he experiences a sense of f u t i l i t y and attempts a hopeless

withdrawal from h i s co-workers.

 14-11

There i s s i g n i f i c a n t evidence that close and p o s i t i v e interpersonal relations

between a f o c a l person and h i s r o l e senders can mediate s u b s t a n t i a l l y the e f f e c t s o f

r o l e c o n f l i c t (Arrow 7) . A given degree of objective role c o n f l i c t i s experienced as

less s t r e s s f u l i n the context of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s w i t h others. At the

same time experienced c o n f l i c t and ambiguity appear to cause d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n I n t e r -

personal r e l a t i o n s (Arrow 9 ) . Thus, a consequence of r o l e c o n f l i c t i s decreased t r u s t ,

respect and l i k i n g for co-workers, and i n the presence of experienced ambiguity there

i s a s i m i l a r attempt on the part of the f o c a l person t o weaken interpersonal relations.

As w i t h c o n f l i c t , t h i s weakening of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s i s s e l f - d e f e a t i n g , since

he f i n d s himself withdrawing i n the face of ambiguity from the very persons from whom

he requires information.

The Place of Personality Variables i n the Study of C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity. Several

personality dimensions mediate s i g n i f i c a n t l y (Arrow 8) the degree to which a given

i n t e n s i t y of objective c o n f l i c t i s experienced as s t r a i n by the f o c a l person. These •

personality dimensions include emotional s e n s i t i v i t y , s o c i a b i l i t y , and flexibility-

rigidity. With respect to s o c i a b i l i t y , we f i n d that the e f f e c t s of objective r o l e

c o n f l i c t on interpersonal bonds and on tension are more pronounced f o r people who are

unsociable (independent). The independent person, i n other words, develops social

r e l a t i o n s which, while often congenial and t r u s t i n g , are e a s i l y undermined by condi-

tions of stress. The preference of such people f o r autonomy becomes manifest p r i -

marily when s o c i a l contacts are s t r e s s f u l , t h a t i s , when others are exerting strong

pressures and thereby creating c o n f l i c t f o r the persons. I n s i m i l a r fashion, emo- 1

t i o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y conditions very sharply the r e l a t i o n s h i p between objective con- 1

f l i c t and tension, w i t h emotionally s e n s i t i v e persons showing s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher

tension scores f o r any given degree of o b j e c t i v e c o n f l i c t . There i s also a tendency

for people of d i f f e r e n t personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be exposed by t h e i r r o l e

senders t o d i f f e r i n g degrees of objective c o n f l i c t (Arrow 4 ) . Thus, people who

are r e l a t i v e l y f l e x i b l e are subjected to stronger pressures than those who have already

demonstrated by t h e i r r i g i d i t y the f u t i l i t y of applying such pressures. Chapter 10

described the conceptual approach to personality employed i n t h i s research, and

 14-12

presents the major personality measures which were used. Chapter 11 deals w i t h emo-

t i o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y as a mediating f a c t o r i n the sequence of stress and response to

stress, w h i l e Chapter 12 presents a s i m i l a r treatment f o r the f a c t o r of s o c i a b i l i t y .

I n t h e concluding section of the book, Section Six, two s t y l e s of summary and

i n t e g r a t i o n are attempted. Chapter 13 discusses i n d e t a i l s i x cases of i n d i v i d u a l s

who s t r u g g l e w i t h varying degrees of success t o cope w i t h the c o n f l i c t s and ambi-

g u i t i e s o f t h e i r jobs. Chapter 14 presents a summary of the major q u a n t i t a t i v e

research f i n d i n g s from both the n a t i o n a l survey and the intensive study.

Throughout t h i s study we have attempted t o deal simultaneously w i t h data at

d i f f e r e n t levels of a b s t r a c t i o n - - i n d i v i d u a l , group, and organization. This i s a

d i f f i c u l t task, and the outcome i s not uniformly s a t i s f a c t o r y . I t i s , nevertheless,

a core requirement f o r understanding human organizations. Organizations are reducible

to i n d i v i d u a l human acts; yet they are l a w f u l and i n part understandable only at the

l e v e l o f c o l l e c t i v e behavior. This d u a l i t y of l e v e l , which i s the essence o f human

o r g a n i z a t i o n as i t i s of s o c i a l psychology, we have attempted to recognize in*our

t h e o r e t i c a l model and i n our research design. Our hope i s that the e f f o r t and i t s

product may contribute t o the understanding of organized human behavior. We know of

no more urgent problem.

 CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROLE CONFLICT INDEX

The Role C o n f l i c t Index covered two major content areast pressures

toward change i n a c t i v i t i e s performance and pressures toward change i n

personal s t y l e * The conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n between these two areas i s

presented i n Chapter 2., pp 9 U0-Ul o

. A c t i v i t i e s Component I

W i t h respect t o each of the a c t i v i t i e s on the f o c a l person's a c t i v i t y

l i s t (see Chapter 2 ) , each r o l e sender was askedr

•'Nearly everyone has sometthingshhec!di:wantv'pe^

d i f f e r e n t l y * Would you l i k e Mr (name o f f o c a l person) t o do t h i s a c t i v i t y
0

e x a c t l y the way he i s now., or would you l i k e him t o do i t i n any way

d i f f e r e n t l y than he does now 0
w

Each r o l e sender responded i n terms of the f o l l o w i n g f i x e d a l t e r n a t i v e * .

Samej D i f f e r e n t ; Doesn't matter; Don't know*

For each c l u s t e r the c o n f l i c t index i s the r a t i o of t o t a l number of

D i f f e r e n t responses over the maximum number of D i f f e r e n t responses» The

maximum number of such responses i s Nk minus the t o t a l number of Don't know,

Doe s n l t i flattery orrlnappiicablerresponses- where N i s the* numberiof.'role* senders

i n t h e c l u s t e r and k i s the number of a c t i v i t i e s on t h e a c t i v i t i e s l i s t *

An, I n a p p l i c a b l e responses was one indicating..'that the r o l e sender i n a previous

question had responded t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y d i d not concern him

e i t h e r Very Much or Somewhat 0

A c t i v i t i e s Component I I

For each a c t i v i t y a r o l e sender was asked:.

"Everyone has some idea as t o how he'd l i k e others around him t o d i v i d e

t h e i r time 0 For each a c t i v i t y on t h i s l i s t , pick the statement which
best represents how much time you would l i k e Mr* (name of f o c a l person)
t o spend on it«
 The seven response categories provided the r o l e sender and the code

value assigned t o each were as f o l l o w s t

Code Response

0 Same as He Does Now

1 A L i t t l e More Than He Does Now

A L i t t l e Less Than He Does Now

2 Somewhat More Than He Does Now

Somewhat Less Than He Does Now

3 Great Deal More Than He Does Now

Great Deal Less Than He Does Now

Where X corresponds t o the above coding values, N t o t h e t o t a l number

of r o l e senders i n the c l u s t e r , and k t o the number of a c t i v i t i e s on the

a c t i v i t i e s l i s t the c o n f l i c t index score f o r t h e c l u s t e r was defined as

the r a t i o of observed pressure away from Same t o maximum possible pressure

away from same r .- . ft ,

OR N
Observed pressure away from Same = ^ ^ ^

Maximum pressure 5^3Nki-ininu533'ftimes:.the responses

S j b y l i s t i c Component I

Each r o l e sender was asked the f o l l o w i n g open-ended question*

"I've already asked you t o describe Mr„ (name of f o c a l person) f o r

me« Now I ' d l i k e t o ask a somewhat d i f f e r e n t question. How would
you l i k e him t o be d i f f e r e n t from the way he i s now?"

For each 0 the number of d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e ways i n which he wanted t h e

f o c a l person t o be d i f f e r e n t was coded, y i e l d i n g an inter-coder r e l i a b i l i t y

of *8£«

For each c l u s t e r two scores were then obtained?

a„ Mean number of ways senders i n a given c l u s t e r wanted the f o c a l

person t o be d i f f e r e n t , and

b. Proportion of senders i n the c l u s t e r i n d i c a t i n g they wished the

f o c a l person t o be d i f f e r e n t i n a t least one way-
 Those raw scores were t h e n converted t o standarxzed T scores and the t o t a l

of these two T scores c o n s t i t u t e d S t y l i s t i c Component I«

S t y l i s t i c Component I I

Each r o l e sender was provided w i t h a' l i s t of the f o l l o w i n g 22 t r a i t s :

1. Shy

2. Self-confident

3. Excitable

Uo Makes f r i e n d s e a s i l y

5o Has ups and downs i n mood

6. Likes t o have s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e enfof.ced

7. Aggressive

8. I s i n close touch w i t h t h i n g s going on around him

°. Impulsive, often acts on t h e spur of t h e moment

10 • Carefree, easygoing

11. S e n s i t i v e t o others, sympathetic t o others

12. Cheerful

13• Tense, edgy, j i t t e r y

lln S e l f conscious, e a s i l y embarrassed

15. Socially bold, self assertive

16. Prefers t o work things out i n his own way

17• Resists c o n t r o l , resents being given orders

18. Quick t o f i n d f a u l t w i t h t h i n g s , very c r i t i c a l

19• Independent

20. Likes things t o be clean, neat and orderly

21. Ambitious

22. Businesslike
 The r o l e sender was then asked t o describe, using t h i s t r a i t l i s t , the

s o r t of person he would best l i k e t o work w i t h i n the f o c a l person's p o s i t i o n *

This d e s c r i p t i o n of the I d e a l f o c a l r o l e occupant was g i v e n by the sender's

checking for.each t r a i t one of the f o l l o w i n g f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e s :

Code Response

1 Very true
2 Somewhat true
h Somewhat untrue
5 Very untrue

Using t h i s same t r a i t l i s t , the respondent was t h e n asked t o describe

the i n d i v i d u a l presently occupying t h e f o c a l p o s i t i o n (Real d e s c r i p t i o n ) .

For each sender responding t o each t r a i t a discrepancy score was obtained by

subtracting h i s Real d e s c r i p t i o n score from h i s I d e a l d e s c r i p t i o n score and

squaring t h i s difference t o e l i m i n a t e i t s s i g n . Each sender's t o t a l discrepancy

score was the sum of h i s discrepancy scores over a l l the 22 items.

S t y l i s t i c Components Index I I was the c l u s t e r mean of a l l i n d i v i d u a l

senders 1
discrepancy scores.

•Role C o n f l i c t Index

The above four components of t h e t o t a l Role C o n f l i c t Index were converted

t o standardized T scores and t h e t o t a l of these c o n s t i t u t e d the Index of Role

Conflict. The correlations of thesec.ccmponents^.with' the t o t a l index were:

A c t i v i t i e s Component I t r
A c t i v i t i e s Component I I ? r — .72
S t y l i s t i c Component I : r — .69
S t y l i s t i c Component H i rT.62

Computation of Sent Pressure Scores f o r i n d i v i d u a l r o l e sendered procedad

on the same p r i n c i p l e s as the computation of the c l u s t e r - l e v e l C o n f l i c t Index.

The o n l y exception t o t h i s r u l e was that f o r S t y l i s t i c Component I j a sender's

score was simply the t o t a l number of ways i n which he wished the- f o c a l person

t o be d i f f e r e n t .
 ITEMS IN JOB-RELATED TENSION INDEX

I n t e r v i e w e r introduced items by asking respondent?

"lAill of us occasionally f e e l bothered by c e r t a i n kinds of things i n

our work* I m going t© read a l i s t ©f things t h a t sometimes bother people,
l

and I would l i k e you t o t e l l me how f r e q u e n t l y you f e e l bothered by each ©f

them,"

I n the n a t i o n a l survey respondents were then presented the f a l l o w i n g items:

A* F e e l i n g t h a t you have too l i t t l e a u t h o r i t y t© carry out t h e

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s assigned t o you

B» Being unclear on j u s t what the scope and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ©f your job are

C» Not knowing what opportunities f o r advancement or promotion e x i s t f o r you

D % Feeling t h a t you have to© heavy a workload, one that you can't possibly
f i n i s h during an ordinary workday

E» Thinking t h a t y o u ' l l not be able t o s a t i s f y the c o n f l i c t i n g demands

of v a r i o u s people over you

F» F e e l i n g t h a t you're not f u l l y q u a l i f i e d t o handle your j o b

G«. Not knowing what your supervisor thinks of you, how he evaluates your
performance

H. The f a c t t h a t you can't get information needed t o carry out your job

I. Having t o decide t h i n g s t h a t a f f e c t t h e l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s , people

t h a t you know

J ft F e e l i n g t h a t you may not be l i k e d and accepted by the people you work w i t h

K # F e e l i n g unable t o influence your immediate supervisor's decisions and

a c t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t you

L 0 Net knowing j u s t what t h e people you work w i t h expect of you

M# T h i n k i n g t h a t the amount of work you have t o do may i n t e r f e r e w i t h how-

w e l l i t gets done

N, F e e l i n g t h a t you have t o do things on the job t h a t are against your

b e t t e r judgment

0» F e e l i n g that your job tends t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h your f a m i l y l i f e

 I n the intensive study items L-0 were omitted from the t o t a l Tension
index and the f o l l o w i n g items were used i n s t e a d *

F» F e e l i n g t h a t your progress on the job i s not what i s should be or could be

Q. Thinking that someone else may get the job above you, the one you are
directly i n line for

R» F e e l i n g t h a t you have too much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y delegated

t o you by your superiors.

Computation of t o t a l Tension Scores

I n t e n s i v e study* Respondent answered each item by choosing bne\ re

of f i v e f i x e d a l t e r n a t i v e responses* Never; Rarely; Sometimes; Rather

Often; Nearly a l l the Time* These a l t e r n a t i v e s were assigned coding values

of from 1 t o 5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Respondents o v e r a l l Tension score was h i s

t o t a l score summed oyer the lU items.

N a t i o n a l survey* '.'.In a d d i t i o n to being given the f i v e response alternatives

j u s t described, respondent was also provided w i t h a Doesn't Apply category.

•Respondent's t o t a l t e n s i o n score was h i s average score over a l l the items

t o which he d i d not respond "Doesn't Apply2.*

 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n Matrices of Tension Items f o r National Survey (NS)
and Intensive Study (IS)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R Item

49 38 20 32 16 37 38 19 30 42 32 24 40 11 - NS A
70 49 27 30 -02 46 56 18 15 38 40 19 25 IS

36 19 40 30 37 42 28 24 39 43 32 34 14 - NS B
27 37 38 28 45 56 22 20' 42. 35 20 40 IS

23 16 31 34 16 16 33 26 22 19 05 - - - NS C
•06 -09 14 16 20 09 30 - - - 48 30 -11 IS

38 19 20 24 31 21 26 31 54 28 25 - - - NS D
33 48 29 40 27 29 20 24 18 50 IS

33 42 38 36 40 45 47 46 33 23 - NS E
22 29 32 -00 13 25 - 34 22 50 IS

25 23 25 23 16 32 33, 18 14 - NS F
26 14 45 53 30 - - 12 20 25 IS

31 20 36 42 50 26 29 12 - - - NS G
34 29 48 47 - - - 14 46 32 IS

31 24 43 36 35 39 14 - , - NS H
16; 10 26 21 10 43 IS

31 32 29 38 31 23 - NS I
58 19 - - 19.30 07 IS

39 40 35 32 24 - NS J
43 - - - - 27 26 22 IS

43 28 35 18 - NS ,K
- - 48 57 19 IS

43 34 18 - NS L
24 - - - - IS

37 29 - NS M
IS

20' - NS N
IS

NS 0
IS

NS P
38 07 IS

NS Q
-09 IS
 ITEMS I N JOB-SATISFACTION INDEX

(Intensive'Study)

Respondents were administered items comprising the j o b - s a t i s f a c t i o n measure

as p a r t of the P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y " T . . These items, together w i t h the response

a l t e r n a t i v e s provided and t h e scoring weights assigned these a l t e r n a t i v e s were:

A. # I s t h e r e some other work, e i t h e r here or .outside your company, which

you would like- b e t t e r than what you are now doing?'

(l) I would r a t h e r have some other j o b ,

(5) I would r a t h e r have my present j o b ,

B. Not counting a l l the other things t h a t make your p a r t i c u l a r job good or

bad, how do you l i k e t h e kind of work t h a t you do?

(1) I d i s l i k e i t very much; would p r e f e r almost any other kind of work.

(2) I don't l i k e i t very much; would much p r e f e r some other kind of work.
(3) I t ' s a l l r i g h t , but^there are other kinds of work I l i k e b e t t e r ,
(U) I l i k e i t very much, but there a r e other kinds of work I l i k e
j u s t as much,
(5) I t ' s e x a c t l y the k i n d of w ork I _ l i k e best.

G, How do you f e e l about the progress you have made i n t h i s company?

(1) I have made l i t t l e or no progress.

(2) I have made some progress, but i t should have been much b e t t e r .
(U) I have made q u i t e a l o t of progress, but i t should have been b e t t e r .
(5) I have made a great deal of progress.

D. How much does your job give you a chance t o do the things you are best at?

(1) No chance a t a l l
(2) Very l i t t l e chance
(3) Some chance
(k) F a i r l y good chance
(5) Very good chance
E. . How do you l i k e working f o r t h i s company?

(1) It's not a very good place t o work.

(2) It's a l l r i g h t , but there are many things t h a t should be changed.
(3) It's a " f a i r l y good place, but q u i t e a few things should be changed.
(U:) Itls a good place, but there are a few things t h a t should be changed.
(5>) It's a very good place—wouldn't change anything.

F. Would you advise a f r i e n d t o c ome and work f o r t h i s company?

(l) I would not advise a f r i e n d t o come and work f o r t h i s company.

(5) I would advise a f r i e n d t o e ome and work f o r t h i s company.

Q. I f you had a chance t o do the .same k i n d of work f o r t h e s ame pay, b u t

i n another company, would you stay here?

(l) I would prefer t o go t o the other company*

(5) I would stay i n t h i s company.

Respondent's t o t a l Job S a t i s f a c t i o n Score was h i s t o t a l score over

these seven items coded as above.

 ITEMS IN CONFIDENCE-IN-QRGANIZATION MEASURE

(Intensive Study)

Respondents were administered the confidence-in-organization measure

as p a r t of t h e P e r s o n a l i t y ''Inventory. I n t h i s measure, the respondent's

a t t i t u d e s toward his superior were assumed t o embody h i s a t t i t u d e s toward

company management i n general. The items c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s measure,

together w i t h the response a l t e r n a t i v e s provided and the scoring weights

assigned these a l t e r n a t i v e s were:

Ai, How w e l l does your boss know the jobs he supervises?

(1) He knows very l i t t l e about the jobs.

(2) He doesn't know the jobs very w e l l .
(U) He knows the jobs f a i r l y w e l l ,
(5) He knows the jobs very w e l l .

How much i s your boss i n t e r e s t e d i n helping those who work under him get
ahead'in the company?

(1) He doesn't want them t o get ahead.

(2) He doesn't care whether they get ahead or not.
(3) He i s glad t o see them get ahead, but he doesn't help them much.
(U) He helps them get ahead, i f he gets a chance. •
(5) He goes out of his way t o help them get ahead.

C. Taking i t a l l i n a l l , how w e l l would you say your boss does h i s job?

(1) He does a poor j o b .

(2) He does a f a i r job.
(3) He does a good j o b .
(U) He does a very good j o b .
(5) He does an e x c e l l e n t job

D. How good would you say your boss i s a t dealing w i t h the people he supervises?

(1) He i s poor a t handling people.

(2) He i s not very good a t dealing w i t h people; does other t h i n g s b e t t e r .
(3) He i s f a i r l y good a t dealing w i t h people.
(U) He i s good a t t h i s — b e t t e r than most.
(5) He i s very good a t t h i s — i t ' s h i s strongest p o i n t .
E. What happens when someone on your l e v e l makes a complaint about something?

(1) I t ' s hardly ever taken care o f .

(2) I t ' s o f t e n not taken care o f .
(li) I t ' s u s u a l l y taken care o f .
(5) I t Is almost always taken care o f .

Respondent's confidence-in-organization score was h i s t o t a l score taken

over these f i v e items coded as above.

 MASTER ACTIVITIES LISTS AND MEASURES BASED ON THESE LISTS

(Intensive Study)

A.Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t f o r each f o c a l person was constructed from two

sources of information:

1. The l i s t of job a c t i v i t i e s provided by the f o c a l person i n his f i r s t

f o c a l i n t e r v i e w , and

2. The job a c t i v i t i e s applicable t o the f o c a l person's job provided b y

r o l e senders i n response t o the f o l l o w i n g questions:

" I f you had t o t e l l someone who knows absolutely nothing about

Mr. (name of f o c a l person) s j o b , how would you describe h i s job?"
!

"Does Mr. (name of f o c a l person) have any other major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? " '

"What s p e c i f i c things does Mr. (name of f o c a l person) have t o do t o

see t h a t these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are met?"

"Does Mr. (name of f o c a l person) have any r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the

company outside of h i s regular j o b — l i k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o a special
committee or t o a union?" 1

The t o t a l l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s provided i n t h i s manner were then arranged

i n t p a three-order o u t l i n e not t o exceed 15 major headings (see sample attached).

Job Conception Adequacy

Each r o l e sender's f r e e l i s t i n g of the f o c a l person's job a c t i v i t i e s

i n response t o the above questions was evaluated as t o the degree t o which

i t reproduced the Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t f o r t h a t f o c a l person. This

Job Conception Adequacy score was defined operationally as ~the r a t i o of.' the

number of a c t i v i t i e s mentioned by the r o l e sender over the t o t a l number of

a c t i v i t i e s on the Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t f o r t h a t c l u s t e r .

A r o l e sender could be given c r e d i t i n a^ number! of ways> for'^mentioning"

an a c t i v i t y .

1. He could s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r t o t h a t a c t i v i t y i n h i s spontaneous

description.
 2» I f he mentioned one " f i r s t - o r d e r " a c t i v i t y (one i n d i c a t e d by

a Boman numeral) and a t l e a s t one. ^second-order" a c t i v i t y included under

i t (one indicated by an Arabic numeral), he was given c r e d i t f o r having

mentioned a l l the second a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d under t h i s f i r s t - o r d e r one.

For example,on the Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t attached, i f the r o l e sender said

" i n charge of accounts receivable" and "processes cash r e c e i p t s " , he would

have been credited w i t h having mentioned I , . 11^,12, I3', l i t , 15> and 16.
v

3» I f he mentioned h a l f or more of the second-order a c t i v i t i e s under

a given f i r s t order a c t i v i t y , he was given c r e d i t f o r having mentioned the

f i r s t - o r d e r a c t i v i t y and a l l the second-order a c t i t i e s under i t . If, for

example, he mentioned I I , 12, and 13, he would have been credited w i t h

mentioning I , i U , 15, and 16 as w e l l .

I n a s i m i l a r manner a sender could be credited w i t h mentioning a l l of

a second-order a c t i v i t y were he t o mention:

a. That second-order a c t i v i t y and a t l e a s t one t h i r d - o r d e r ( l e t t e r e d )

a c t i v i t y beneath i t , or

b. Half or more of the t h i r d - o r d e r a c t i v i t i e s beneath t h i s

second-order one (

Other scores based on these Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t s were* Importance

of Company Boundary Contacts; Importance of Departmental Boundary Contacts:

C r e a t i v e , or Innovative Demands. For a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n of these variables

see chapters 5 and 6.

Master A c t i v i t i e s L i s t — C l u s t e r 1100

I. I n charge of accounts receivable

l o inter-company accounts maintained f o r a f f i l i a t e s , acts as c l e a r i n g house
2. reviews inter-company accounts, reconciles them
3# processes cash receipts
l i . statements t o customers and a f f i l i a t e s , e.g. delinquent statements
5. conferences w i t h f o r e i g n a f f i l i a t e s
6. responsible f o r inter-company accounting procedures, l e t t e r s of i n s t r u c t i c

II. In charge of accounts payable (disbursements)

1. payment f o r m a t e r i a l s , supplies
2>. settlement of l i a b i l i t i e s
3. processes disbursements
a. payments f o r world-wide accounts
b. payments f o r domestic accounts
c. purchase payments f o r world-wide a f f i l i a t e s

I I I . Handles problems
1. special jobs f o r a s s t . c o n t r o l l e r or o f f i c e manager, e.g. court cases
2. devises procedures f o r handling accounting materials
3. r e f e r s problems t o higher-ups
U. investigates accounting errors and takes remedial action
5. meetings w i t h o f f i c e manager

IV. I n charge of o f f i c e services

I . m i c r o f i l m i n g , co-ordinator i n charge of m i c r o f i l m program
2 0 s t a t i s t i c a l help, comptometer p o o l
3. f i l e room, records r e t e n t i o n program
U. mail room, messengers

V. Supervision
1 . consults w i t h group heads (accounts payable and receivable groups)
2. s t a f f meetings, consults w i t h h i s s t a f f
3. makes supervisory decisions

VI. Personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

V I I . Co-ordination
!• obtains i n f o r m a t i o n ffom other sections and departments* keeps i n
contact with'department personnel
2. responsible t o d i s t r i b u t i o n groups who receive accounting documents
from other companies
a. sees t h a t these documents are i n on time
b. routes these documents, passes on accounting materials

VIII. Committees
1. p u b l i c i t y committee
2. Remote Control Center
 CONSTRUCTION OF AMBIGUITY INDICES
V. ( I nte gs iire iS tudy)

I a Ambiguity r e Ebqp^ctatljOBs.

The f o c a l person was asked w i t h respect t o each of h i s r o l e senders*

"As f a r as you know, does he usually l e t you know when he expects or

wants something from you,- or does he often keep these things t o h i m s e l f ? w

The response categories provided and t h e code value assigned t o each

were as f o l l o w s : ,1 . ' . „,

Code Response. .

1 Always l e t s me know
2 Usually l e t s me know
3 Sometimes does, sometimes doesn t !

U • Usually does not l e t me know

£ Never l e t ' s me know

The"meaaaevaluation of j a i s t r o l e senders^by a given f o c a l person c o n s t i t u t e d

t h i s person's Ambiguity r e Exp©ctations:jscore»

II» Ambiguity r e Evaluations

The f o c a l person was asked w i t h respect t o each of h i s r o l e senderst

**Do you usually f e e l that' you know how s a t i s f i e d he i s w i t h what you do??

The response categories provided and the code value assigned t o each
were as f o l l o w s t

Gode Response
. . .

1 Always know where I stand

2 Usually know
3 Sometimes^ and sometimes not
k. Often somewhat i n the dark
5 Usually don't know where I stand

The mean evaluation of h i s r o l e senders by a given f o c a l person .constituted

t h i s person's Ambiguity r e Evaluations s c o r e 0

Ambiguity Index

The..\£irst three items i n the Ambiguity Index, together w i t h the response

a l t e r n a t i v e s provided the respondent and the codes assigned these a l t e r n a t i v e s

were as f o l l o w s £

I * "Do you f e e l you are always as clear as you would l i k e t o be about what you
have t o do on t h i s job?"

Code Response
1 TLS
1 Xes
5 No

2. (Immediately f o l l o w i n g the above question i n the interview) "'Which of the

f o l l o w i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s best represents how clear you are?"

Code Response

1 I am very clear
2 Quite clear on most things
3 F a i r l y clear
h Not too clear
5> I am not a t a l l clear

3o "How c l e a r are you about the l i m i t s o f your a u t h o r i t y i n your present

.position?*

• -'Codes and responses were i d e n t i c a l t o i t e m 2 above..

Respondent's t o t a l Ambiguity Index was h i s t o t a l score on the above three

items p l u s h i s scores on the Ambiguity re Expectations and Ambiguity re

Evaluations I n d i c e s . A l i n e a r transformation subsequently reduced t h i s

grand t o t a l t o a one-digit score.

 Loadings of 25 Personality Measures on Six Personality Factors

I II III IV V VI

1 T o t a l Anxiety (IPAT) .901 -.368 .059 -.126 .127 -.102

2 Cyclothymia"(16EF) -.304 -.035 .000 .317 -.298 -.007
3 I n t e l l i g e n c e (16PF) -.155 --:io2 .119 -.465 -.275 -.005
4 Surgency (16PF) -.365 -.202 .020 .570 -.124 .067
5 Parmla (16PF) -.272 - .076 .079 .370 -1170 .212
6 Pfemsia (16PF)' .052 -.059 .152 *.095 -.185 -.073
7 Neuroticism (Bernreuter) .484 -.226 -.206 -.563 .063 -.057
-8 I n t r o v e r s i o n (Bernreuter) .154 -.052 .152 -.474 .162 .039
9 F l e x i b i l i t y (CPI) .038 -.079 .760 -.019 -.021 -.005
10 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (CPI) --.157 .552 .228 -.277 -.288 .005
11 S e l f - c o n t r o l (CPI) -.206 .775 -,088 -.057 .024' .117
12 Tolerance (CPI) -.268 .406 ,321 -.118 -.248 .181
13 Lassitude (MMPI) .726 -.032 -.091 .037 .185 -.068
14 Dependence (ISR) .224 .233 -.135 .369 .020 -.075
15 Need Cognition (ISR) -.078 .291 .040 -.022 -.180 .179
16 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n (ISR) -.271 ,112 -.013 -.104 .147 .448
17 Confidence i n org. (ISR) -.103 .059 .048 .079 -.124 .785
18 P h y s i o l o g i c a l Anxiety (CMI) .429 -.063 -.470 -.155 -.234 -.153
19 Loss of will-power (IPAT) .506 -.447 .275 -•288 -.203 -.084
20 Low ego strength (IPAT) .175 -.457 -.079 .053 .211 -.103
21 Protension (16PF) .346 -.194 .046 -.136 .652 -.168
22 Anxiety (IPAT) .771 -.056 .063 -.037 .133 .010
23 Tension (IPAT) .742 -.092 -.182 -.040 -.053 -.072
24 Unhappy childhood (ISR) .351 -.486 -.106 -.019 .379 .016
25 Lie (ISR) -.273 .726 -.087 .280 -.059 -.003
 v.

Normative Expectation Items

I n assessing the normative expectations o f each r o l e sender f o r the f o c a l

person, each role sender was presented a l i s t o f 36 items describing behaviors i n

which P might engage. The r o l e sender was then asked:

"Down the l e f t side of t h i s page are a number of things Mr. (name o f

f o c a l person), might do. For each o f the . things I'd l i k e to get your personal
o p i n i o n as to whether you'd l i k e him to do i t or not do i t . The headings a t
the top of each column on the f i g h t i n d i c a t e the degree to which you'd
personally l i k e to see him do i t . Next t o each thing l i s t e d , j u s t check i n
the column t h a t best expresses your f e e l i n g s . "

The columns were headed:

Strongly prefer he do i t
Somewhat prefer he do i t
Doesn't ,matter t o me
Somewhat prefer he not do i t
Strongiy prefer he not do i t

The 36 normative expectation items were as follows:

1. Accept judgments of higher-ups as f i n a l .

2. Come up w i t h new, o r i g i n a l ideas f o r handling work.
3. Try t o make himself look good i n the eyes of higher-ups whenever possible.
4. Spend time o f f . the job w i t h others I n the company who have a much lower
p o s i t i o n than h i s .
5. Break company r u l e s when-he thinks i t i s i n the company's best i n t e r e s t .
6. Report others, who break company r u l e s .
7. Take'an occasional day o f f j u s t to r e l a x .
8. By-pass o f f i c i a l channels when he wants something done i n a hurry.
9. S t i c k to the l e t t e r o f company rules'.
10. T e l l things to higher-ups that might, make him look bad.
11. Take advantage of every opportunity f o r promotion.
12., Carry j out orders even i f he- t h i n k s they are unsound.
13. Withold information from nigher-ups which puts a co-worker i n a bad l i g h t .
14., Do f a v o r s f o r friends contrary to company rules. ,
15. T e l l higher-ups-his 'frank opinion even i f i t w i l l h u r t them.
16. Do the best he can, even i f i t makes a co-worker look bad by comparison.
17. Report t o h i s superior any short-cut« he uses i n h i s work.
J

18. " Defend h i s co-workers f r o m . c r i t i c i s m by tlheir superiors,

19. Spend jtime o f f the job w i t h others who have a much higher p o s i t i o n than h i s .
20i Spend-most of h i s time i n supervisory matters.
21. Let those he supervises set t h e i r own work-pace.
22. T r a i n men under him f o r - b e t t e r jobs.
23. Be responsible for. keeping up the morale of those under him.
24. Try t o cover up e r r o r s made by those under him.
25. Take a personal i n t e r e s t i n h i s men.
26. Take sides w i t h h i s men i n any dispute w i t h the company,
27. Carry out orders h i s men don't l i k e .
28. Give special a t t e n t i o n to friends i n making recommendations f o r promotion.
 -2-

29. Accept f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the decisions o f those under him.

30. Consult w i t h h i s men i n making any decisions'that a f f e c t them.
311 Keep an eye on the personal l i f e of those under him.
32. Withold from h i s men information h i s own superiors don't want passed 6n.
33. Check frequently on the work o f h i s men.
34. Leave the, men he superivses alone unless they want help.
35. Keep men informed on what I s happening i n the company.
36. A l l o w h i s men a great deal to say about the way they do t h e i r work.
 Loadings of 36 Normative Items on the Seven Normative Factors

Item Factor
Number

I II III IV V VI VII

1 -.422 -.008 .117 .003 .076 -.014 .021

2 -.008 -.342 .084 -.074 .219 .139 -.156
3 -.105 -.102 - .070
;
.118 .441 -.123 -.026
4 ,299 -.047 -.021 .025 .089 -.342 .095
5 ,335 .002 -.215 .234 -.063 -.087 -.255
6 -.188 -.208 .415 -.296 .196 -.097 -.122
7 ,366 .032 -.284 .161 -.025 -.202 -.183
8 .388 .110 -.106 .103 -.047 -.077 -.219
9 -.696 -.078 .173 -.152 .144 -.026 .013
10 .127 -.049 .119 -.094 -.035 .216 -.383
11 -.145 -.146 -.058 -.128 .614 .087 -.009
12 -.203 .041 .253 -.039 .156 .282 -.106
13 .166 -.040 -.108 .616 -.059 .064 .115
14 .051 .292 -.027 .428 -.021 -.257 -.143
15 .027 -.072 -.082 -.166 .051 .059 -.568
16 -.013 -.186 .138 -.112 .181 .439 -.220
17 -.201 -.310 .135 -.200 .163 .178 -.093
18 .065 -.206 -.182 .249 .092 -.011 .016
19 .394 -.185 .016 .032 .278 -.099 .052
20 -.337 -.209 .118 -.095 .025 .135 -.064
21 .083 .068 -.680 .096 .086 -.121 -.084
22 -.032 -.608 -.037 .007 .265 .247 -.037
23 -.072 -.578 .075 -.007 .044 -.011 -.046
24 .171 .059 -.212 .533 -.031 -.166 .108
25 -.060 -.582 .018 -.065 .030 -.013 -.010
26 .237 .013 -.390 .141 -.005 -.162 .034
27 -.212 -.213 .200 .077 .020 .437 -.121
28 -.167 .324 .024 .267 .072 -.439 -.077
29 -.072 -.419 -.025 .092 -.103 .160 -.210
30 .005 -.372 -.307 -.010 .060 -.045 .149
31 -.158 -.270 .128 -.076 -.084 -.092 -.162
32 -.006 .-.281 .249 .030 .136 .290 .087
33 -.326 -.327 .380 -.114 -.048 .063 -.057
34 .044 -.000 -.500 .072 .038 -.062 .034
35 .034 -.440 -.274 -.131 .036 .072 .050
36 .178 -.231 -.595 .048 -.027 .053 -.001
 .PUBLIC IMAGE FACTOR SCORES

The Public Image Factor Scores assigned to each r o l e sender i n d i c a t e the

p o s i t i o n s -oR-IEi-ve ^.personality jf actors . a t : which i he p e r c e i v e s - t h e - f o c a l person.

The raw data used i n computing these scores were the r o l e sender's descriptions

of the f o c a l person on the 22 t r a i t s l i s t e d i n the Appendix on Construction of

Role C o n f l i c t Index. The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of these 22 t r a i t s on the sample

of 3 8 l r o l e senders were subjected t o a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , the r e s u l t s of which

are a t t a c h e d . From the i n f o r m a t i o n provided by t h i s f a c t o r analysis, Public

Image Factor Scores were computed for each r o l e sender i n a manner i d e n t i c a l t o

that used i n the computation of Normative Expectation f a c t o r scores (see Chapter

These f i v e f a c t o r s , together, w i t h the.' items. chosen^to^represent each are

as f o l l o w s ?

I — Emotional S t a b i l i t y

(vnbt;)' .excitable
(.not-)- tense, edgy, j i t t e r y
(not)'.impulsive, o f t e n acts on the spur of the moment
(.not;) 'has ups and downs i n mood
-

(notO.; quick t o f i n d f a u l t with t h i n g s , very c r i t i c a l

4Hbt:)oresists c o n t r o l , resents being given orders
• cheerful

I I — A s s e r t i v e Self-Confidenee

( n o t ) shy
aggressive
( n o t ) seIf]~consclous, e a s i l y embarrassed
self-confident
i s i n close touch w i t h things going on around him
s o c i a l l y b o l d , s e l f assertive
ambitious

I I I — Independence

independent
p r e f e r s t o work things out i n his own way
self-confident
r e s i s t s c o n t r o l , resents being given orders
s o c i a l l y b o l d , s e l f assertive
IV - -Indus t r i bus ne s s

businesslike
l i k e s things t o be c l e a n , neat and orderly
ambitious
i s i n close touch w i t h things going on around him
l i k e s t o have s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e enforced
aggressive

V—Sociability

makes f r i e n d s e a s i l y
cheerful
s e n s i t i v e t o others, sympathetic t o others
c a r e f r e e , easygoing
( n o t ) r e s i s t s c o n t r o l , resents being given orders
 Loadings of 22 T r a i t s on Five Public Image Factors

I II III IV V

1. Shy .081 .766 -.011 -.040 -.011

2. Self-confident .005 -.462 -.313 -.221 -.115

3. Excitable -.725 -.126 -.082 .075 .123

4. Friendly .219 -.090 .150 -.068 -.683

5. Moody -.'589 .008 .014 .041 .155

6. Disciplinarian -.076 -.280 .124 -.386 .160

i
7. Aggressive -.181 - . 686 -.159 -.343 -.022

8. I n close touch .146 -.387 -.085 -.426 -.147

/
9. Impulsive -.649 -.148 -.232 .002 .132
10.. Carefree .074 .Q94 -.094 .257 -.396

11- Sensitive,sympathetic .110 .156 -.142 .146 -.493

12. Cheerful .334 -.031 .003 -.131 -1 663

13. Tense -.672 .044 -.085 .108 .235

14. Self-conscious -.278 .461 -.026 -.044 , • ^013

15. S o c i a l l y bold -.271 -,380 -.290 .213 .104

16. , "Own Way" -.154 -.054 -.599 -.123 .156

17. Resists c o n t r o l -.424 -.055 -.289 .153 . 343

18. Critical -.509 -.090 -.114 .030 .261

19. Independent -.144 -.100 -.759 -.002 -.010

20. Tidy .149 .023 .020 -.520 -.138

21. Ambitious .011 -.364 -.183 -.433 .069

22. Businesslike .290 -.159 -.066 -.575 -.106