UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of intraorganizational conflict upon the behaviour of a collective bargaining team Storey, Gordon Douglas 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A4_6 S86.pdf [ 5.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094230.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094230-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094230-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094230-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094230-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094230-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094230-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094230-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094230.ris

Full Text

T H E I N F L U E N C E OF INTRAORGANICZATIONAL C O N F L I C T UPON T H E B E H A V I O U R O F A . C O L L E C T I V E B A R G A I N I N G T E A M b y GORDON DOUGLAS S T O R E Y B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1965 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F S C I E N C E IH. BUSINESS IBMIIISTMTIOH i n T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S ( F a c u l t y o f C o m m e r c e a n d B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s / O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A S e p t e m b e r 1978 (g) G o r d o n D o u g l a s S t o r e y , 1978 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1WS i a ABSTRACT; T h i s t h e s i s r e p o r t s theory development and e x p l o r a t i v e f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. From the t h e o r e t i c a l bases of Walton and McKersie's (1965) 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 (IOC) concept and Pondy's (1967) process model of c o n f l i c t , a model o f b a r g a i n i n g team IOC i s developed. The model p a r t i t i o n s b a r g a i n i n g team IOC i n t o f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c t i o n a l subsets. Seven p r o p o s i t i o n s r e l a t e d to the e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC are developed from c o n f l i c t and d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e . These p r o p o s i t i o n s are concerned with the e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC on p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f team members, r u l e b r e a k i n g behavior, time d e l a y s , and d e c i s i o n s t y l e s . O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s and t e s t s f o r d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC are developed using F i l l e y ' s (1975) f i v e item d e f i n i t i o n of c o n f l i c t and seven item win-lose, l o s e -l o s e , c o n f l i c t responses. A p a r t i c i p a n t / o b s e r v e r quasi-case a n a l y s i s o f an a c t u a l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team experience i s the b a s i s f o r data generation. Many of the p r o p o s i t i o n s are supported i i i the observed b a r g a i n i n g team environment. While the s i n g l e case methodology prevents g e n e r a l i z e d c o n c l u s i o n s i b r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, the f i n d i n g s t e n t a t i v e l y suggest there may be c o n s i d e r a b l e p r a c t i c a l p a y o f f s f o r extending t h i s r e s e a r c h a r e a . The f i e l d experience p r o v i d e s some a d d i t i o n a l research i n s i g h t s r e g a r d i n g the dynamic v a r i a b l e of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. In t h i s study, d y s f u n c t i o n a l b a r g a i n i n g team IOC i s observed as a few r e c u r r i n g i s s u e - r e l a t e d problems fl o w i n g throughout the b a r g a i n i n g team i n t e r a c t i o n s . I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s study r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e r e s e a r c h on IOC i n a b a r g a i n i n g team are suggested. i c Table o f Contents Page CHAPTER I - C o n f l i c t and Ba r g a i n i n g Team Behavior 1 CHAPTER I I - T h e o r e t i c a l Consequences o f IOC... 10 PART I : IOC Theory and an O p e r a t i o n a l Model 1 0 1. B a r g a i n i n g Team Behaviors.. 10 2. IOC:A T h e o r e t i c a l Model of I n f l u e n c e . . . 11 3. C o n f l i c t Defined and O p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. F u n c t i o n a l and D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. ..' 22 PART I I : P r o p o s i t i o n s 1. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC Outcomes i n a C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Team 31 2. Summary 41 CHAPTER I I I - Choice of Methodology 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2. The Purpose o f Research.... 44 3- Present Methods of Researching C o n f l i c t . . . . . . . 48 4. An Approach to the Study o f Ba r g a i n i n g Team IOC 57 CHAPTER IV - A F i e l d Study o f B a r g a i n i n g Team IOC 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 i i Table of' Contents (Continued) Page 2. Background ttZ 3. Observation Methods... 66 4. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC Behavior...... 67 5. Summary. 97 CHAPTER V - Conclusions 100 1. Appropriateness o f the T h e o r e t i c a l Model 100 2. U t i l i t y o f O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n s 1Q4-3. Conclusions Related t o P r o p o s i t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 References. 1 1 7 i i i L i s t o f Tables Page TABLE I - Member Assessment o f D e c i s i o n Making S t y l e . . . , . . . . - .94 TABLE I I - Summary o f P r o p o s i t i o n F i n d i n g s . . . . . 98 L i s t o f F i g u r e s FIGURE 1 - Model o f T h e o r e t i c a l IOC Generation and Infl u e n c e Upon B a r g a i n i n g Team Behavior 17 FIGURE 2 - H y p o t h e t i c a l I l l u s t r a t i o n o f IOC/Tolerance L e v e l I n t e r a c t i o n s 24 FIGURE 3 - O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n o f F u n c t i o n a l and D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. .. 29 FIGURE 4 - Stages o f Theory Generation.. 47 i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The h e l p and a s s i s t a n c e of so many people goes i n t o a p r o j e c t of t h i a s o r t t h a t i t becomes imp o s s i b l e to r i g h t l y and f a i t h f u l l y ; acknowledge them a l l . To those not s p e c i f i c a l l y ; r e c o g n i z e d here I t r u s t t o your kindness and understanding. A most s i n c e r e thank you i s of course extended to a l l t h e members of ray t h e s i s committee. T h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l wisdom, p a t i e n c e and encouragement throughout t h i s long and sometimes stumbling odyssey i s most a p p r e c i a t e d . F r i e n d s and loved ones most c e r t a i n l y should share i n t h i s accomplishment. They provided c a r i n g support, s a c r i f i c i n g c o u n t l e s s hours of p l a y and l e i s u r e time and even p u t t i n g up w i t h the odd emotional tyrade when things weren't going smoothly. To Graham, B r i a n and Shannon, thank you. Supportive c r i t i c s are indeed rare: gems. For the determined and sometimes t r y i n g e f f o r t s of c r i t i q u i n g my e a r l i e r d r a f t s and a c t i n g as a sounding board of ideas a very s p e c i a l acknowledgement t o my c o l l e a g u e , Debby C l e v e l a n d . For the p a t i e n t and expert t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of my i l l e g i b l e handwriting i n t o t h i s f i n i s h e d document c r e d i t i s extended t o my t y p i s t , T e r r y Ross. V F i n a l l y , I wish to acknowledge and dedicate t h i s t h e s i s t o one who i s not a b l e t o read i t , but who f o s t e r e d and nurtured my d e s i r e t o ask questions and to seek t h e i r answer - G. (Les) S t o r e y . CHAPTER ONE: C o n f l i c t and B a r g a i n i n g Team Behavior Ask i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s p r a c t i t i o n e r s and p a r t i -c i p a n t s o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g teams i f c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the team i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e l a t e d to i t s o p e r a t i o n and performance and they w i l l e m p h a t i c a l l y answer, yes. S e v e r a l seasoned i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s n e g o t i a t o r s r e p o r t e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e awareness o f problems they have encountered due to c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team (W. R o l f e & M. Wil k i n s o n , p e r s o n a l communication, February 1976), As team l e a d e r s , they attempt to t r e a t , t h a t i s c o n t r o l , t h e l e v e l o f c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t h e i r teams through a v a r i e t y of techniques such as p r e s e l e c t i o n o f compatible team members, focused d i s c u s s i o n , o r avoidance o f d i s c u s s i o n o f c e r t a i n i s s u e s , and even the removal o f team members. F u n c t i o n i n g over a p e r i o d of s e v e r a l years i n both n e g o t i a t o r and team-member c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g r o l e s , t h i s author has d i r e c t l y observed the occurrence and treatment o f c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the team. Yet ask these same team l e a d e r s what are the p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t r e l a t e d to team o p e r a t i o n and performance and t h e i r responses are extremely vague. Some p o i n t t o a p o s s i b l e l o s s o f important i n p u t from team members as an outcome o f - 2 -untreated c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the team. Others suggest there i s a gre a t d e a l o f wasted time when team member c o n f l i c t s u r f a c e s . From such responses an o p i n i o n i s formed t h a t the treatment o f b a r g a i n i n g team c o n f l i c t i s l a r g e l y an i n t u i t i v e response, perhaps motivated by some s o c i e t a l v alue which suggests c o n f l i c t i s non-p r o d u c t i v e . One purpose o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to explore the e x i s t e n c e , nature and m e a s u r e a b i l i t y o f c o n f l i c t as i t may occur w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. I f , as w i l l be t h e o r e t i c a l l y supported, c o n f l i c t does occur w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team, t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l p rovide d e s c r i p t i v e i n s i g h t s i n t o what symptoms o f the v a r i a b l e look l i k e and how c o n f l i c t operates. In a c h i e v i n g t h i s g o a l , the re s e a r c h w i l l a l s o provide i n f o r m a t i o n on m e a s u r e a b i l i t y o f the c o n f l i c t v a r i a b l e . An e q u a l l y important purpose of the research i s a p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n o f the e f f e c t s o r r e s u l t s of c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the b a r g a i n i n g team. Why not leave the s u b j e c t o f c o n f l i c t and b a r g a i n i n g team behavior i n the presen t i n t u i t i v e s t a t e ? F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o f the t o p i c i s u s e f u l f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t , i t i s r e a d i l y acknowledged by the p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a t c o n f l i c t occurs w i t h i n the b a r g a i n i n g team and t h a t i t i s t r e a t e d . The u t i l i t y o f the treatment a c t i v i t y - 3 -needs examination. Treatment o f c o n f l i c t r e q u i r e s expenditures o f human energy and, o f t e n , a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l human resou r c e s . Examination of the u t i l i t y o f such expenditures i s one reason f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Recently among employers i n B r i t i s h Columbia, there has been an i n c r e a s i n g t r e n d towards m u l t i u n i t or a s s o c i a t i o n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . In m u l t i u n i t b a r g a i n i n g a n e g o t i a t i n g team i s made up o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Each o f these r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , as a team member, w i l l c a r r y forward the more d i v e r s e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f h i s parent body. A m u l t i u n i t b a r g a i n i n g teamvtherefore, appears to have a high p o t e n t i a l f o r go a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y - a c o n f l i c t generator. The i n c r e a s i n g u t i l i z a t i o n o f a m u l t i u n i t b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e t h e r e f o r e can be expected to provide g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r occurrence o f c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the b a r g a i n i n g team. Thus a second reason f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s t o p i c i s i t s t i m e l i n e s s i n the i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s environment o f B r i t i s h Columbia. A . t h i r d compelling m o t i v a t i o n f o r a d d i t i o n a l research on the t o p i c i s a s s o c i a t e d with the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team i s a ready-made l a b o r a t o r y w i t h a r i c h environment f o r the study o f (1976) r e f e r s to as a s y n t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n . - 4 -S y n t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s are thought to have c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h appeal f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f dynamic v a r i a b l e s such as c o n f l i c t . The r i c h n e s s o f the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team s e t t i n g has p a r t i c u l a r appeal t o f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h because many of the f a c t o r s hypothesized as s i g n i f i c a n t t o the generation o f c o n f l i c t , e.g. r o l e ambiguity, goal d i s p a r i t y , are present. The f o r e g o i n g reasons argue i n f a v o r of t h i s r e s e a r c h on c o n f l i c t w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. I t is. necessary and t i m e l y to d i s c a r d the v e i l o f i n t u i t i v e l e a d e r response i n favour o f a more i n t e n s i v e . , understanding o f the nature and e f f e c t s o f c o n f l i c t as a p a r t i c u l a r i n f l u e n c e upon b a r g a i n i n g team behavior. While Chapter Two develops i n more d e t a i l the concepts o f c o n f l i c t and b a r g a i n i n g team behavior u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study, b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n of them here i s i n order. B a r g a i n i n g team behavior i s considered to be the s e t o f behaviors a s s o c i a t e d with any or a l l members o f a b a r g a i n i n g team t h a t r e l a t e to performing t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r r o l e s w i t h i n the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g s e t t i n g . Team member behavior may occur d u r i n g separate group meetings Ccaucuses) d u r i n g j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s i n v o l v i n g two o r more p a r t i e s and d u r i n g o u t s i d e a c t i v i t i e s and d i s c u s s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to the - 5 -c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g process. C o n f l i c t i s more a p p r o p r i a t e l y d e f i n e d as 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 (IOC) f o l l o w i n g Walton and M c K e r s i e 1 s ( 1 9 6 5 ) d i s t i n c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r type o f c o n f l i c t o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n the b a r g a i n i n g team. IOC i s d e f i n e d as the subset o f b a r g a i n i n g team behaviors t h a t are determined by members of the team t o be incompatible w i t h the l e g i t i m a t e r o l e s , f u n c t i o n s and goals o f the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s the p a r t i c u l a r subset o f b a r g a i n i n g 1 team behaviors t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d , t h e o r e t i c a l l y , with counterproductive behavior responses. T h i s study makes extensive use o f F i l l e y ' s (1975) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f win-lose and l o s e - l o s e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n behaviors as a means o f o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n i n g the response as being counterproductive and t h e r e f o r e the i n i t i a l behavior as d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. I t was suggested p r e v i o u s l y t h a t a r a t h e r l a r g e gap e x i s t s between t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge o f c o n f l i c t and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g environment. Some attempts to f i l l t h i s gap,however,are noted i n the resear c h l i t e r a t u r e . Walton and McKersie (1965) developed a conceptual model of b e h a v i o r a l i n f l u e n c e s On labour r e l a t i o n s . They concluded t h a t IOC was a v a r i a b l e o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n determining o v e r a l l outcomes i n the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g environment. Yet t h e i r theory does l i t t l e to d e f i n e or e x p l a i n the s p e c i f i c nature of IOC and i t s e f f e c t s w i t h i n the team. Peterson and Tracy (19 76) attempted to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the Walton and McKersie model; however,their f i n d i n g s s u f f e r e d from the same shortcoming as the o r i g i n a l Walton and McKersie (1965) model. That i s , IOC was p e r c e i v e d by the s u b j e c t s o f the study t o be an important v a r i a b l e r e l a t e d t o outcomes;however,the study d i d not show how IOC operated on the teams. Kochan e t a l (1975) found t h a t IOC c o n t r i b u t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r type o f negative c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g behavior which they l a b e l l e d ' m u l t i l a t e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n * . M u l t i -l a t e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i s the brea k i n g a p a r t o f a b a r g a i n i n g team r e s u l t i n g i n d i r e c t and unsanctioned n e g o t i a t i n g c o n t r a c t s ( i n t e r v e n t i o n s ) between a member o f the team and the opposing n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t y . T h e i r study, while demonstrating support f o r the resea r c h i s s u e , d i d not i n d i c a t e how IOC works. The fo r e g o i n g r e s e a r c h leaves unanswered questions r e g a r d i n g the nature o f IOC i n a b a r g a i n i n g team and the manner o f i t s o p e r a t i o n . In t h i s regard, b a r g a i n i n g team behavior g e n e r a l l y , and IOC i n p a r t i c u l a r , have been t r e a t e d as a "black box" w i t h i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g models. The present research, by e x p l o r i n g - 7 -the e x i s t e n c e and m e a s u r e a b i l i t y o f t h e o r e t i c a l l y determined v a r i a b l e s i n a s p e c i f i c b a r g a i n i n g team experience, i s an attempt to pry open the b l a c k box. Due to the e x p l o r a t i v e nature o f the present r e s e a r c h i t i s not expected t h a t r e s u l t s w i l l p r o v i d e g e n e r a l i z a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s , but t h a t they w i l l be suggestive of f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h designed to t e s t the p r o p o s i t i o n s which have been developed. A p r a c t i c a l and manageable l i m i t must be p l a c e d on the scope of any r e s e a r c h . In the i n i t i a l attempt to pry open the black box o f b a r g a i n i n g team behavior, d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors are considered to have the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r study. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d . t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC response behaviors w i l l be more observable than IOC g e n e r a l l y and w i l l more l i k e l y l e a d to important negative r e s u l t s o f team behavior. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior by team members i s the s e l e c t e d independent v a r i a b l e s t u d i e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . To t h e o r e t i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h p o t e n t i a l outcomes o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior r e q u i r e s examination of c e r t a i n aspects o f both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior, and i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s f i e l d s o f knowledgei The refinement o f general c o n f l i c t theory i n t o a s e t o f o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l b a r g a i n i n g team IOC behavior a s s o c i a t e d w i t h counter p r o d u c t i v e response - 8 -behaviors i s the subject, o f the f i r s t p a r t o f Chapter Two. I t i s suggested t h a t three general questions are s i g n i f i c a n t i n the research:. Does d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC delay the n e g o t i a t i n g process? Does d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC reduce the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of team members? Does d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC j e o p a r d i z e the o v e r a l l n e g o t i a t i o n process by f o s t e r i n g r u l e b r e a k i n g and a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s t y l e behaviors? Expansion o f these questions i n t o a s e t o f s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s r e l a t e d to b a r g a i n i n g team b e h a v i o r a l outcomes i s the s u b j e c t o f the second p a r t of Chapter Two. Chapter Three i s concerned with the s e l e c t i o n o f an appropriate methodological approach t o the study of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. I t presents a review o f the present methods u t i l i z e d , t h e i r shortcomings and advantages,and the o u t l i n e o f a r e s e a r c h design. Chapter Four d e s c r i b e s the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team f i e l d study background and contains d e s c r i p t i o n s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior and i t s r e s u l t s as observed i n the f i e l d study. Observations are a l s o contained i n Chapter Four on the m e a s u r e a b i l i t y aspects of the o p e r a t i o n a l model. - 9 -The f i n a l chapter,, F i v e , presents r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s regarding both t h e o r e t i c a l and o p e r a t i o n a l model f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the outcomes proposed to occur i n a b a r g a i n i n g team w i t h d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC; and a d d i t i o n a l remarks as to f u r t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the re s e a r c h . - 1 0 -CHAPTER TWO; T h e o r e t i c a l Consequences o f IOC PART I : IOC Theory and an O p e r a t i o n a l Model 1 . B a r g a i n i n g Team Behaviors Understanding the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f IOC upon b a r g a i n i n g team behavior n e c e s s i t a t e s some c l a r i f i c a t i o n as to the t y p i c a l g o a l s , r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s o f t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l group. In the North American labour r e l a t i o n s system, achievement o f a c o l l e c t i v e agreement u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g between management and union b a r g a i n i n g teams each s e l e c t e d to represent i t s r e s p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s o r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s . A c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team has s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s to perform r e l a t e d t o the p r e p a r a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f economic and working c o n d i t i o n demands and counter o f f e r s . Working w i t h i n l i m i t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s u l t i m a t e l y , i t i s d e c i s i o n s made by each team t h a t are r e f l e c t e d i n the f i n a l products the c o l l e c t i v e agreement and the ongoing management-union r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus i t i s l a r g e l y to i t s own b a r g a i n i n g team t h a t each p a r t y looks f o r attainment o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g g o a l s . I t appears t h a t s e v e r a l r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s are c a r r i e d out by b a r g a i n i n g team members. Team members a c t as important l i n k a g e s between t h e i r parent o r g a n i z a t i o n a l group o r groups and the b a r g a i n i n g team. - 1 1 . -In t h i s communicator r o l e , team members provide i n p u t to the n e g o t i a t i n g process and feedback t o t h e i r parent o r g a n i z a t i o n ( s ) o r groups on the progress o f n e g o t i a t i o n s . Team members a l s o perform a v a r i e t y o f support f u n c t i o n s such as a c t i n g as spokesman and performing r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n c e to the team. On oc c a s i o n , one o r more members o f the team may be asked t o assume a d e v i l ' s advocate r o l e , f a c i l i t a t i n g f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s o r weaknesses i n the team's n e g o t i a t i n g p o s i t i o n ( s ) . Team members may a l s o c a r r y out a human r e l a t i o n s l e a d e r s h i p r o l e by a t t e n d i n g to the s o c i a l atmosphere i n the group. The human r e l a t i o n s l e a d e r s h i p f u n c t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t when n e g o t i a t i o n s become p r o t r a c t e d p l a c i n g heavy demands upon team members* resources, time and energy. F u l f i l l i n g these r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s n e c e s s i t a t e s frequent i n t e r a c t i o n s among team members as w e l l as with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e parent o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r c o n s t i t u e n t s : t h e r e f o r e the p o t e n t i a l f o r IOC behaviors i s high. 2. IOC; A T h e o r e t i c a l Model o f Influence Research on l a t e r a l c o n f l i c t , i . e . between group members, suggests s e v e r a l f a c t o r s o r v a r i a b l e s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e to c o n f l i c t u a l behavior. These may be broadly grouped i n t o the f o l l o w i n g three c a t e g o r i e s : i n d i v i d u a l member i n f l u e n c e s ; s t r u c t u r a l and b e h a v i o r a l 12 -i n f l u e n c e s and environmental i n f l u e n c e s . I n d i v i d u a l member i n f l u e n c e s , according to s e v e r a l s t u d i e s reviewed by Rubin and Brown (1975), are causes of c o n f l i c t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r i n g backgrounds such as age, race, s o c i a l background -, member's s t a t u s , and p e r s o n a l i t y ; eg. r i s k t a k i n g p r o p e n s i t y , t o l e r a n c e to ambiguity, s e l f concepts, motives, and a t t i t u d e s . Rubin and Brown (1975) suggest t h a t these f a c t o r s generate i n a b a r g a i n i n g team member an i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t i s p r e d i c t i v e o f the member's r e a c t i o n to b a r g a i n i n g team s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . While the p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f team member i n t e r p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s not o f d i r e c t concern to t h i s r e s e a r c h , the t h e o r i z e d e x i s t e n c e o f d i f f e r i n g 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 - supports the n o t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l team member i n f l u e n c e s as an important f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to IOC. Team member behavior i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by the s p e c i f i c nature of the s t r u c t u r a l and b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s a t work w i t h i n the group. C o n f l i c t generation has been shown to be c o r r e l a t e d with s e v e r a l o f these f a c t o r s . F i l l e y (1975) draws together nine s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d i n c o n f l i c t research with generation o f c o n f l i c t u a l behavior. For example, the ambiguity o f r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s w i t h i n the group i s seen as a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t generator. In o t h e r words, a l a c k o f formal s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n the group may cause c o n f l i c t u a l - 13 -behavior. P h y s i c a l and time s e p a r a t i o n among the members can cause communication b a r r i e r s and c o n f l i c t u a l behavior. A need f o r consensus on the team's d e c i s i o n may generate c o n f l i c t u a l behavior. F i n a l l y , the e x i s t e n c e o f b e h a v i o r a l r e g u l a t i o n s , w hile reducing the p o s s i b i l i t y o f ambiguity, a l s o generates a p o t e n t i a l f o r r e s i s t a n c e o f the members to c o n t r o l s ( F i l l e y , 1975). Major environmental i n f l u e n c e s upon the team a l s o c o n t r i b u t e to the generation o f IOC. Rubin and Brown (1975) note the importance o f audience pressures on team member behavior. S i g n i f i c a n t audiences to a b a r g a i n i n g team are t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s and c o n s t i t u e n t s , who may have common c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g goals o r very d i f f e r i n g ones; t h i r d p a r t i e s , such as mediators or c o n c i l i a t o r s ; and o f t e n the general p u b l i c . The a n t i c i p a t e d o r a c t u a l r e a c t i o n s o f the opposing n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t y w i l l a l s o generate environmental p r e s s u r e s on the team members, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are i n t e r p r e t e d o r pe r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t l y by v a r i o u s team members. The independent and j o i n t i n f l u e n c e s o f these f a c t o r s are thought to generate a v a r i e t y o f a c t u a l team members IOC behaviors throughout the i n t e r a c t i o n processes, i . e . caucuses, j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s and other meetings o f the group. Pondy (1967) t h e o r e t i c a l l y demonstrated t h i s l i n k a g e by developing a. systems model of c o n f l i c t t o d e s c r i b e the flow o f c o n f l i c t u a l behavior - 14 -generation from antecedent o r p o t e n t i a l causes, such as those d e s c r i b e d above, through to manifest b e h a v i o r s , such as aggression, r e p r e s s i o n , o r withdrawal, by group members. Pondy's (1967) c o n f l i c t model i s known as a process model o f c o n f l i c t . The process model suggests the importance o f l o o k i n g a t the i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the b a r g a i n i n g team f o r i n d i c a t i o n s o f IOC behaviors. F u r t h e r , i t suggests t h a t there i s a flow o f c o n f l i c t u a l behaviors o c c u r r i n g throughout the team's i n t e r a c t i o n processes. The process model o f c o n f l i c t a l s o suggests t h a t when IOC behavior i s manifest , i . e . , becomes1 observable w i t h i n a group, i t i s t r e a t e d i n some manner t o reduce o r e l i m i n a t e any p e r c e i v e d counterproductive e f f e c t s . Treatment or response behaviors have been c a t e g o r i z e d by F i l l e y (1975) as three general types: win-win, win-lose, and l o s e - l o s e . F i l l e y ' s (1975) typology c a t e g o r i z e s response behaviors according to the r e s u l t s gained by each c o n f l i c t u a l p a r t y . A win-win response behavior i s so l a b e l l e d because each pa r t y t o the c o n f l i c t achieves o b j e c t i v e s . F i l l e y (1975) presents problem s o l v i n g through consensus and i n t e g r a t i v e d e c i s i o n making as win-win c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n b ehaviors. The win-lose response behavior, c r e a t e s a winning p a r t y t h a t achieves i t s o b j e c t i v e s and a l o s i n g p a r t y t h a t f a i l s . t o do so. Common win-lose b e h a v i o r a l - 15 -responses to c o n f l i c t are e x e r c i s i n g a u t h o r i t y o r power, i g n o r i n g the other p a r t y , on r e s o r t i n g to m a j o r i t y o r m i n o r i t y r u l e . The t h i r d type o f response behavior,, l o s e - l o s e , i s a p p l i e d to a c o n f l i c t where n e i t h e r p a r t y i s able t o achieve i t s o b j e c t i v e s . Compromising, u s i n g s i d e payments to " b r i b e " the o t h e r p a r t y , s u b m i t t i n g an i s s u e t o a n e u t r a l t h i r d p a r t y , and r e s o r t i n g to r u l e s , are thought o f as behaviors o f the l o s e - l o s e type although sometimes they may r e s u l t i n win-lose outcomes. Response behaviors to IOC are d e l i b e r a t e attempts — t o prevent o r modify a n t i c i p a t e d c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e IOC e f f e c t s i n a b a r g a i n i n g team. For example, a b a r g a i n i n g team l e a d e r may t r e a t a g g r e s s i v e behavior o f a team member which could l e a d to outbursts at the • b a r g a i n i n g t a b l e by i n v o k i n g a r u l e ( l o s e - l o s e ) t h a t only the team le a d e r may speak at the t a b l e . In another example, a.member may p e r s o n a l i z e an attack on another team member i n order to win a p a r t i c u l a r t a c t i c a l argument and the team leader may e l e c t an a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s t y l e ( l o s e - l o s e ) which removes the debate from d i s c u s s i o n . Seen i n these two examples, in v o k i n g r u l e s and s e l e c t i n g an a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s t y l e , are d e l i b e r a t e responses which attempt to modify o r prevent the a n t i c i p a t e d e f f e c t s . Yet as F i l l e y (1975) suggests, - 16 -the nature o f the response has a s i g n i f i c a n t b e a r i n g on the longer run o p e r a t i o n o f the team. C o n f l i c t t h a t i s not t r u l y r e s o l v e d i s i t s e l f a generator o f f u t u r e c o n f l i c t through the flow o f i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the team. Thus the response i s i t s e l f a s t r u c t u r a l and b e h a v i o r a l i n f l u e n c e , g e n e r a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l f o r fu t u r e c o n f l i c t . A h y p o t h e t i c a l example w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h i s i n f l u e n c e . At an o f f i c e p a r t y one team member u n w i t t i n g l y d i s c l o s e s an important c o n f i d e n t i a l b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n to an opposing team member. T h i s d i s c l o s u r e becomes known to another member of the team who openly c r i t i c i z e s the e r r a n t member at t h e i r next caucus meeting. As the c r i t i c i s m i s h i g h l y p e r s o n a l i z e d i t i s co n s i d e r e d a win-lose response behavior. I f the per s o n a l c r i t i c i s m causes f u r t h e r IOC behavior i n r e t a l i a t i o n f o r the apparent putdown or embarrassment i n f r o n t o f other team members, the win-lose response behavior i s a generator o f f u t u r e IOC behavior. R e s u l t s o f c o n f l i c t u a l behavior have been another major focus o f res e a r c h . C o n f l i c t t h a t i s e i t h e r l e f t u ntreated o r i n e f f e c t i v e l y r e s o l v e d has been shown to reduce the l e v e l o f member p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Walton and Dutton, 1969; Kee, 1970), n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t the cohesiveness o f the group ( L o t t , 1961), reduce group performance (Romans, 1950), reduce t r u s t and communications FIGURE 1 : MODEL OF THEORETICAL IOC GENERATION AND •INFLUENCE UPON BARGAINING TEAM BEHAVIOR Influences I n t e r a c t i o n Processes B e h a v i o r a l Outcomes I n d i v i d u a l Member 1A S t r u c t u r a l IOC and ? B e h a v i o r a l Behav IB i o r s Environment mental 1C Re solved IOC , I I l Responses win-win win-lose l o s e - l o s e I I P o t e n t i a l Generators of IOC P o s i t i v e 4A Eg. Cooperation High P e r f o r -mance Negative 4B Eg.= Low p a r t i c i -p a t i o n Rule b r e a k i n g Low Group Performance - 18 -(Deutsch, 1973), a l t e r p e r c e p t i o n s o f members towards an i n c r e a s e d s e n s i t i v i t y t o d i f f e r e n c e s between members (Deutsch, 1973), and render i n e f f e c t i v e a problem s o l v i n g task o r i e n t a t i o n (Deutsch, 1973; F i l l e y , 1975). Yet F i l l e y (1975) suggests t h a t some c o n f l i c t d i f f u s e s more severe c o n f l i c t , s t i m u l a t e s the search f o r new f a c t s and s o l u t i o n s , i n c r e a s e s group cohesion and performance and acts to provide i d e n t i f i a b l e measures o f power and a b i l i t y . R e l a t e d to the f u n c t i o n s and o b j e c t i v e s o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team, the fo r e g o i n g r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t there are both p o s i t i v e and negative, outcomes o f IOC behaviors. As wit h response, the outcome e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y when n e g a t i v e l y valued by team members, are p o t e n t i a l generators o f f u r t h e r IOC. The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n r e l a t i n g c o n f l i c t theory to the p o t e n t i a l generation and i n f l u e n c e o f IOC on b a r g a i n i n g team behavior i s summarized i n Fig u r e 1. **************** I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 **************** IOC may be generated by i n t e r a c t i o n s o f any or a l l o f the v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n the three i n f l u e n c e f a c t o r s o f i n d i v i d u a l member i n f l u e n c e s , s t r u c t u r a l and b e h a v i o r a l - 19 -i n f l u e n c e s , and environmental i n f l u e n c e s (frames 1A, IB, and 1C) .. IOC behaviors are manifest i n the team i n t e r a c t i o n processes (frame 2 ) . Responses to IOC behaviors (frame 3) may modify IOC behavior. Response behaviors/however,also i n c l u d e the l e g i t i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n o f c o n f l i c t ; t h u s they do not n e c e s s a r i l y a l t e r IOC. The response as a p o t e n t i a l generator o f IOC i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the dotted l i n e l i n k i n g frame IB and 3. Response t h a t t r u l y r e s o l v e s IOC behavior e l i m i n a t e s any f u r t h e r out-comes and i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e I by an arrow e x i t i n g the model from frame 3. The i n t e r a c t i o n between IOC and the response (frames 2 & 3) produces a v a r i e t y o f outcomes which have been p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y dichotomized i n r e l a t i o n to a i d i n g o r b l o c k i n g the achievement of a b a r g a i n i n g team's f u n c t i o n s and o b j e c t i v e s (frames 4A and 4B). The dotted l i n e between negative outcomes (frame 4B) and s t r u c t u r a l and b e h a v i o r a l i n f l u e n c e s (frame IB) shows t h a t these behaviors are a l s o p o t e n t i a l generators of f u t u r e IOC. The focus o f research i n t h i s study i s upon the nature and m e a s u r e a b i l i t y of IOC and i t s e f f e c t s . O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f frames 2 and 3, t h e r e f o r e , are concentrated upon i n the next two s e c t i o n s o f t h i s chapter. As i t i s thought t h a t the negative outcomes o f IOC have more research p o t e n t i a l , P a r t I I o f t h i s chapter develops p r o p o s i t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n to frame 4B. - 20 -3. C o n f l i c t Defined and O p e r a t i o n a l i z e d Walton and McKersie (1965) l a b e l c o n f l i c t t h a t i occurs between members o f one p a r t y to the n e g o t i a t i n g process as 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 (IOC). T h i s i s to be c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s c o n f l i c t , o r i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t , between unions and management, which i s the more commonly s t u d i e d c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g behavior. What i s IOC? Rubin and Brown (1975) suggest t h a t " C o n f l i c t i s a s t a t e t h a t e x i s t s whenever incompatible a c t i v i t i e s occur" (p. 4). This statement provides c e r t a i n i n s i g h t s i n t o the nature o f IOC. I t suggests t h a t c o n f l i c t i s a flow o f c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s o r behaviors t h a t occur d u r i n g the group members' i n t e r a c t i o n s o r process o f a t t a i n i n g d e s i r e d outcomes. The flow approach t o the nature of c o n f l i c t i s supported by Mack and Snyder (1966) , Pondy (196 7) and F i l l e y (1975) who view c o n f l i c t as a s o c i a l process i n h e r e n t l y p a r t o f a l l group i n t e r a c t i o n s . F i l l e y * s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the c o n f l i c t u a l s i t u a t i o n p r o v i d e s o p e r a t i o n a l c l a r i t y : 1. At l e a s t two p a r t i e s ( i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups) are i n v o l v e d i n some k i n d of i n t e r a c t i o n . 2. Mutually e x c l u s i v e goals and/or mutually e x c l u s i v e v a l u e s e x i s t , i n f a c t o r as pe r c e i v e d by the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . - 21 _ 3. I n t e r a c t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by behavior designed to d e f e a t , reduce, or suppress the opponent o r to g a i n a mutually designated v i c t o r y . 4. The p a r t i e s face each o t h e r w i t h mutually opposing a c t i o n s and c o u n t e r a c t i o n s . 5. Each p a r t y attempts to c r e a t e an imbalance or r e l a t i v e l y favoured p o s i t i o n o f power v i s - a - v i s the o t h e r (Filley,1975,p.4) Yet,- as Rubin and Brown note i t i s only c e r t a i n incompatible a c t i v i t i e s which are regarded as c o n f l i c t u a l . Deutsch (1973) . suggests t h a t i t i s the p e r c e p t i o n of one o r more o f the members which designates behavior o r a c t i o n s as incompatible. T h i s n o t i o n i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d by F i l l e y i n (2) above. The d e f i n i t i o n o f b a r g a i n i n g team IOC adopted i n t h i s study t h e r e f o r e i s t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s o f behaviors o r a c t i v i t i e s o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n process which are p e r c e i v e d by a member o f members as b e i n g incompatible w i t h the r o l e s , f u n c t i o n s and/or o b j e c t i v e s o f the team. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f IOC i n c i d e n t s i n the study w i l l be made through a p p l i c a t i o n of the f i v e noted c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o n f l i c t ( F i l l e y , 1975). I t i s important to r e c o g n i z e t h a t the term "incompatible" has not been given a value connotation i n - 22 -the f o r e g o i n g d e f i n i t i o n . The d i s t i n c t i o n between f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n o f t h i s chapter. Viewing IOC as a flow o f incompatible behaviors o c c u r r i n g throughout the b a r g a i n i n g team experience has the advantage o f a l l o w i n g examination o f v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f IOC. Support f o r suggesting a v a r i a t i o n i n IOC l e v e l s i s given by Pondy (1967). Pondy c o n c e p t u a l i z e d the aftermath o f an e f f e c t i v e o r i n e f f e c t i v e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n process t o be a v a r y i n g l e v e l o f r e s i d u a l c o n f l i c t . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fig u r e 1, t h i s r e sidue i s a b e h a v i o r a l i n f l u e n c e on f u t u r e c o n f l i c t . 4. F u n c t i o n a l and D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC How i s an observer able t o d i s t i n g u i s h IOC behavior from o t h e r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n a group? One approach may be to l e t the group members i d e n t i f y i t . As noted i n the pre c e d i n g s e c t i o n , Deutsch (1973) suggests t h a t members make a p e r c e p t u a l d i s t i n c t i o n r e g a r d i n g an incompatible behavior. That i s , one member makes a judgement o f the behavior o f another member as to whether i t i s IOC. Yet even when a group member pe r c e i v e s IOC he must make a f u r t h e r d e c i s i o n as to whether o r not to a c t i v e l y respond. Ignoring the IOC behavior i s a pa s s i v e response which, according to l e a r n i n g theorists/may l e a d to e x t i n c t i o n o f the _ 23 _ behavior. On the o t h e r hand, having decided to a c t i v e l y respond, the nature o f the response w i l l be one o f the three typess win-win, win-lose o r l o s e - l o s e . While i t i s impossible to observe the i n t e r n a l d e c i s i o n making processes o f team members, t h e i r a c t i v e response behaviors are c l e a r l y more observable. F i g u r e 2 g r a p h i c a l l y presents a p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l example o f the i n t e r a c t i n g mechanisms o f incompatible b e h a v i o r s , IOC, and a team member's v a r i a b l e t o l e r a n c e l e v e l d u r i n g the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s . I t i s important to emphasize t h a t a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not p o s t u l a t e d as f o l l o w i n g the i l l u s t r a t e d p a t t e r n . **************** I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 **************** As presented i n F i g u r e 2, there may be s e v e r a l p e r i o d s d u r i n g the team i n t e r a c t i o n processes where the l e v e l o f IOC exceeds a team member's t o l e r a n c e . During such time p e r i o d s , i . e . the shaded areas o f F i g u r e 2, incompatible behaviors are more l i k e l y t o be focused upon and responded t o . In a d d i t i o n , when the l e v e l of IOC exceeds a team member's t o l e r a n c e l e v e l he may be more l i k e l y to respond i n a c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e , i . e . win-lose o r l o s e - l o s e , manner. He i s f e d up w i t h the p e r c e i v e d IOC behavior. The f o r e g o i n g does not imply t h a t FIGURE 2 H y p o t h e t i c a l I l l u s t r a t i o n of IOC/Tolerance Level I n t e r a c t i o n - 25 -a l l IOC behavior o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d w i l l be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e l y t r e a t e d . F i l l e y (1975) c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n f l i c t can be t r e a t e d by a r e s o l u t i o n mechanism o f the win-win type as w e l l . An example of team member behavior may a i d understanding o f the conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s drawn above. Suppose a member i s i n t e r m i t t e n t l y l a t e f o r team meetings throughout the b a r g a i n i n g experience. T h i s behavior i s i n t e r p r e t e d as IOC by a team member because they have a lengthy agenda to complete. When the i n t e r p r e t i n g team member's t o l e r a n c e t o IOC i s l e s s than the l e v e l of IOC he w i l l i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y respond to the IOC behavior and i s l i k e l y to respond i n a counterproductive manner. T h i s process i s i d e n t i f i e d to the observer by the responding member's p e r s o n a l l y focused c r i t i c i s m o f the tardy member. I t i s t h i s c o unterproductive response which i n d i c a t e s to the observer t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior has occurred i n the view o f the responding member. Due to the r e c y c l i n g nature of IOC behavi o r s ; i . e . the flow o f c o n f l i c t , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the. t a r d i n e s s i s s u e w i l l a gain be r a i s e d i n the i n t e r a c t i o n processes o f the team and a g a i n responded t o . The r e c y c l i n g a c t i v i t y allows an observer t o f o l l o w the now i d e n t i f i e d d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior through t o i t s c o n c l u s i o n even when the outcomes - 26 -are not immediately i d e n t i f i a b l e . In the example, the c o n c l u s i o n might be the c o r r e c t i n g o f the t a r d i n e s s by the team member (immediate) o r perhaps complete withdrawal o f the team member from the experience (longer run outcome). C o n f l i c t r e s e a r c h has been p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c i z e d f o r imposing a value system i m p l y i n g a s o c i a l "goodness" f o r c o o p e r a t i v e behavior and s o c i a l "badness" f o r a d v e r s a r i a l b e h a v i o r (Thomas and Kilmann, 1977). L e t t i n g the team member i d e n t i f y IOC beha v i o r , as s i g n a l e d to the observer by h i s v a r i o u s responses, a t l e a s t p laces the value judgement o f behavior w i t h i n the team. The crux o f the i s s u e i n o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n i n g d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC becomes one o f determining a s e t of observable counterproductive IOC response behaviors t h a t does not confound the proposed outcomes. F i l l e y (19 75) , summarizin/g r e s e a r c h on c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , presents a s e t o f b e h a v i o r a l response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f win-lose and l o s e - l o s e behavior t h a t i s thought to be u s e f u l . F i l l e y ' s s e t o f counterproductive c o n f l i c t response behaviors have the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. There i s a c l e a r we-they d i s t i n c t i o n between the p a r t i e s r a t h e r than a we-versus-the-problem o r i e n t a t i o n . 2. Energies are d i r e c t e d towards the other p a r t y i n an atmosphere o f t o t a l v i c t o r y o r t o t a l defeat. - 27 -3. Each p a r t y sees the i s s u e o n l y from i t s own p o i n t o f view, r a t h e r than d e f i n i n g the problem i n terras o f mutual needs. 4. The emphasis i n the process i s upon attainment o f a s o l u t i o n , r a t h e r than upon a d e f i n i t i o n o f g o a l s , v a l u e s , o r motives to be a t t a i n e d with the s o l u t i o n . 5. C o n f l i c t s are p e r s o n a l i z e d r a t h e r than d e p e r s o n a l i z e d v i a an o b j e c t i v e focus on f a c t s and i s s u e s . 6. There i s no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t -r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s from o t h e r group processes, nor i s there a planned sequence o f those a c t i v i t i e s . 7. The p a r t i e s are c o n f l i c t - o r i e n t e d , emphasizing the immediate disagreement, r a t h e r than r e l a t i o n s h i p - o r i e n t e d emphasizing the long-term e f f e c t o f t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s and how they are r e s o l v e d . ( F i l l e y , 1975,p.25) These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be used as a c h e c k l i s t o f observed response behaviors i n a b a r g a i n i n g team. That i s , they are the o p e r a t i o n a l determinants of counter-p r o d u c t i v e b e h a v i o r a l responses to IOC. I t i s noted t h a t d e f i n i n g IOC behavior as f u n c t i o n a l o r d y s f u n c t i o n a l by u s i n g p r o d u c t i v e and counterproductive response behavior c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s does not o v e r l a p proposed negative and p o s i t i v e outcomes as the l a t t e r r e f e r to more general r e s u l t s of IOC which are not n e c e s s a r i l y observable a t the time an IOC behavior occurs. These outcomes may emerge a t a much l a t e r time. In p a r t t h i s time delay may occur as a - 28 -r e s u l t o f the r e c y c l i n g process of IOC d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . The d i s t i n c t i o n between f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s made by o b s e r v i n g the nature o f the response; win-win f o r f u n c t i o n a l IOC and win-lose, o r l o s e - l o s e i d e n t i f y i n g d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. These responses' are observable a t , o r c l o s e t o , the time an IOC behavior occurs. As the use o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to c a t e g o r i z e c o n f l i c t responses has not been attempted i n o t h e r re s e a r c h , a remaining unanswered q u e s t i o n i s the number of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t must be pr e s e n t i n order to c l a s s i f y an IOC behavior as d y s f u n c t i o n a l . T h i s i s a measurement ques t i o n to which the f i e l d study of Chapter Four w i l l address i t s e l f . F i g u r e 3 , summarizes the f o r e g o i n g development of o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s f o r f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. ***************** I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 ***************** In the i n t e r a c t i o n processes o f a b a r g a i n i n g team an incompatible behavior i n r e l a t i o n to team r o l e s , f u n c t i o n s o r o b j e c t i v e s occurs (IOC). I f IOC i s responded to , the response behavior w i l l be one of the three types presented by F i l l e y (19 75) and grouped i n F i g u r e 3 as e i t h e r p r o d u c t i v e (win-win) or - 29 FIGURE 3 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL IOC EVENT RESPONSE IOC TYPE OUTCOMES An Incompatible Behavior (IOC) P r o d u c t i v e (win-win) Func- -t i o n a l P o s i t i v e C ounterproductive > Dys- y N e g a t i v e f u n c t i o n a l ( w i n - l o s e l o s e - l o s e ) C l a s s i f i e d as IOC by t e s t o f F i l l e y ' s f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o n f l i c t u a l b e h a v i o r . I d e n t i f i e d to observer by F i l l e y ' s s e t of seven counter-p r o d u c t i v e c o n f l i c t response b e h a v i o r s . - 30 -counterproductive (win-lose or l o s e - l o s e ) . P roductive responses l e a d to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the IOC behavior as f u n c t i o n a l and to p o s i t i v e outcomes. Counterproductive responses l e a d to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the IOC behavior as d y s f u n c t i o n a l and to n e g a t i v e outcomes. As the focus o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s upon p o t e n t i a l negative outcomes o f IOC, p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n should be d i r e c t e d to the win-lose and l o s e - l o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f response behavior. These are a n t i c i p a t e d t o be more observable, or d i s t i n c t from o t h e r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n behaviors, because they are most l i k e l y to occur when a team member's t o l e r a n c e to IOC i s exceeded. The second l i n e of the IOC o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n process shown i n F i g u r e 3, therefore,, has been s e l e c t e d as the o p e r a t i o n a l model f o r f u r t h e r examination which i s re p o r t e d i n Chapter Four. P a r t I I of t h i s chapter turns a t t e n t i o n to development o f a s e t o f s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g p o t e n t i a l outcomes o f the occurrence o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors. - 31 _ P a r t I I PROPOSITIONS 1. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC Outcomes' i n a C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g Te:am Three general questions r e g a r d i n g the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC were presented i n Chapter One. Rephrased from p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s and d i s c u s s i o n s i t i s suggested t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may i n f l u e n c e the f o l l o w i n g : the time p e r i o d r e q u i r e d to conclude a c o l l e c t i v e agreement, the l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n of team members, and the s u c c e s s f u l completion o f the n e g o t i a t i n g process.. Turning to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior and i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s f i e l d s o f knowledge, these impressions are expanded i n t o a set o f resea r c h supported p r o p o s i t i o n s . i . E x t e n s i o n o f the n e g o t i a t i n g time p e r i o d Deutsch (1973) found t h a t w i l l i n g n e s s o f members to cooperate with one another, given t h a t they p e r c e i v e themselves t o be i n a c o n f l i c t u a l s i t u a t i o n , was reduced as the s i z e o f the c o n f l i c t i n c r e a s e d . The c l o s e , although not exact, p a r a l l e l between changing s i z e o f c o n f l i c t and v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f IOC (Pondy, 1967), suggests t h a t as d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC reaches an observable s t a t e c o o p e r a t i o n may be reduced. That the l e v e l o f cooperation can be r e l a t e d t o speed o f achievement o f o b j e c t i v e s has been demonstrated by Druckman (1968). He found, i n observing dyadic - 32 _ outcomes, t h a t the speed o f j o i n t labour management n e g o t i a t i o n s was enhanced when j o i n t p r e n e g o t i a t i o n d i s c u s s i o n s were h e l d , i . e . cooperation between the p a r t i e s was i n c r e a s e d . I f , as Druckman (196 8),suggests a hig h l e v e l o f cooperation speeds completion o f the task, i t may be expected t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC by reducing c o o p e r a t i o n , w i l l extend the n e g o t i a t i n g process. S p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s may be more caucus time spent r e s o l v i n g l a c k o f cooperation between member i s s u e s , a d d i t i o n a l meetings and p r i v a t e s e s s i o n s between some or a l l members o f a team attempting to r e c o n c i l e d i f f e r e n c e s , absences from meetings by team members thus causing delays i n needed i n f o r m a t i o n - i n p u t or d e c i s i o n making, and p o s s i b l y t o t a l withdrawal o f one or more members o f a team. T h i s l a t t e r behavior has an e f f e c t upon time needed t o complete the n e g o t i a t i o n process o n l y i f replacement of a team member i s made, thus causing delays while the new member i s o r i e n t e d and updated. P r o p o s i t i o n I - The occurrence of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC d u r i n g the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g process may r e s u l t i n a lengthening o f the time taken to conclude a c o l l e c t i v e agreement. _ 33.... As c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i s o f t e n c a r r i e d out under c r i t i c a l , e x t e r n a l l y imposed c o n s t r a i n t s , such as a s t r i k e o r loc k o u t d e a d l i n e , and/or i n t e r n a l l y imposed pressures to achieve r e s u l t s , the remedy f o r low co o p e r a t i o n may a l s o take the b e h a v i o r a l form o f i n c r e a s e d i n p u t s t o f o s t e r c o o p e r a t i o n . For example, a team may schedule a d d i t i o n a l caucus meetings or extend the meeting hours to d e a l w i t h the process i s s u e of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. These inputs have the e f f e c t o f i n c r e a s i n g the o f t e n already heavy human resource expenditure, i . e . s a l a r i e s and time away from ot h e r t a s k s , a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o p e r a t i n g a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. P r o p o s i t i o n IA - Where t i m e - l i m i t s prevent ext e n s i o n o f the n e g o t i a t i n g process,an outcome o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s an i n c r e a s e i n team resource i n p u t s ; i . e . more time i s a l l o c a t e d by one or more team members, or e x t e r n a l agents must be i n t r o d u c e d , to attempt a r e s o l u t i o n o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, i i . Reduction of Input P a r t o f the communicator r o l e of team members i s to provide i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n p u t r e l a t e d t o the expe c t a t i o n s of t h e i r membership, t h e i r p e r s o n a l e x p e r t i s e on - 34 -c o n t r a c t u a l i s s u e s , and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the o t h e r p a r t y ' s motives: and a n t i c i p a t e d a c t i o n s . Communication i n a team caucus i s necessary to f u l f i l l t h i s f u n c t i o n . Yet a competitive process has been shown by Deutsch (1973) to l e a d to e i t h e r a l a c k o f communication or m i s l e a d i n g communication. Walton and Dutton (1969) a l s o noted these behaviors i n t h e i r s t u d i e s o f i n t e r - u n i t c o n f l i c t . P r o p o s i t i o n I I - D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n team member behavior t h a t e i t h e r withholds i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n p u t and/or presents i n f o r m a t i o n i n such a manner as to mislead o t h e r team members. i i i . Team member behavior i n o p p o s i t i o n to r u l e s o f the  team The c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g process r e q u i r e s t h a t members o f a team share p o s i t i o n s and i n f o r m a t i o n of a c o n f i d e n t i a l nature. A team's b a r g a i n i n g power may be s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d i f i n f o r m a t i o n as to a team's u l t i m a t e p o s i t i o n on an i s s u e were to be prematurely communicated to the o t h e r p a r t y . In f a c t , the s t r a t e g y o f the opposing p a r t y i s to determine t h i s ; t h e r e f o r e knowledge of d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n a team r e l a t e d to i s s u e s and s t r a t e g y may be played upon by the oth e r team. As a r e s u l t c l e a r r u l e s o f behavior f o r team members are - 35 -normally e s t a b l i s h e d a t the out s e t . One such r u l e o f t e n e s t a b l i s h e d i s f o r o n l y the spokesman/negotiator to communicate with the o t h e r p a r t y i n j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . Other members o f the team, while o f t e n present a t the s e s s i o n s , w i l l only speak a t the request of t h e i r spokesman. Another r u l e i s the p r o h i b i t i o n o f d i s c u s s i o n between the p a r t i e s o f items r e l a t e d to c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g o t h e r than a t formal j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s . E m p i r i c a l evidence o f r u l e breaking behavior was found by Kochan, e t a l (19 75), r e g a r d i n g m u l t i -l a t e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n as d i s c u s s e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h i s study. Kochan a t t r i b u t e s t h i s r u l e breaking behavior to the occurrence o f IOC i n the employer's b a r g a i n i n g team. P r o p o s i t i o n I I I - D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n the breakdown o f p r e v i o u s l y agreed upon team r u l e s . i v . Acceptance/commitment o f team members through  d e c i s i o n making s t y l e The treatment process, such as d e c i s i o n making s t y l e , a l s o has been t h e o r e t i c a l l y shown to e f f e c t the outcomes of c o n f l i c t . Vroom and Yetton, (1973) develop a normative model o f e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making s t y l e s - 36 -based upon s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s o f the d e c i s i o n problem. They conclude t h a t e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making through a p a r t i c i p a t i v e process i s d i c t a t e d by a need f o r acceptance by group members i n o r d e r to ensure i t s e x e c u t i o n . Another s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e Vroom and Yetton l i n k with s e l e c t i o n of a p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e to ensure execution i s a low p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the group members w i l l accept, without q u e s t i o n , the d e c i s i o n of a l e a d e r . F i n a l l y , Vroom and Yetton (1973), suggest that where there i s l i k e l i h o o d of disagreement or c o n f l i c t over the p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n a p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making s t y l e i s most e f f e c t i v e . Vroom and Yetton d e f i n e p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making. Two s t y l e s are paraphrased which they view as a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the f o r e g o i n g s i t u a t i o n s : 1. The leader shares the problem with the group members as a group, o b t a i n i n g t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e ideas and suggestions. Then the l e a d e r makes a d e c i s i o n , which may or may not r e f l e c t the group's i n f l u e n c e . T h i s c o n s u l t a t i v e approach i s p a r t i c i p a t i v e as to i n p u t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s but not n e c e s s a r i l y as to the d e c i s i o n reached. 2 . The l e a d e r shares the problem with the group members as a group. Together a l t e r n a t i v e s are generated and e v a l u a t e d i n an attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a s o l u t i o n . The l e a d e r ' s r o l e i s much l i k e a chairman. The l e a d e r does not t r y t o i n f l u e n c e the group to adopt p e r s o n a l l y p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n s and i s w i l l i n g to accept and implement any s o l u t i o n which has the support o f the e n t i r e group. Choice o f d e c i s i o n making s t y l e between the two o u t l i n e d , a c c o r d i n g to Vroom and Yetton, i s based upon whether o r not group members can be t r u s t e d by the d e c i s i o n maker to s e l e c t an a l t e r n a t i v e i n accordance w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , i . e . team,goals. I f i t i s b e l i e v e d they can be t r u s t e d , then the group based mode, ( 2 ) , i s viewed as more e f f e c t i v e i n the normative model. The f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s , t h e r e f o r e , s u g g e s t t h a t the treatment process, i . e . d e c i s i o n making s t y l e w i t h i n the b a r g a i n i n g team, should be of a p a r t i c i p a t i v e nature. 1 . One t y p i c a l b a r g a i n i n g team r o l e i d e n t i f i e d a t the beginning of t h i s chapter i s the f u n c t i o n of p r o v i d i n g feedback to the parent - 38 -o r g a n i z a t i o n ( s ) from the team. As the process o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i n v o l v e s a s e r i e s o f team d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d to go a l s , s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s , t h e agreement w i t h these d e c i s i o n s o f t e n r e q u i r e s c o n s i d e r a b l e s e l l i n g o f the team's d e c i s i o n s to i t s p r i n c i p a l s . T h i s persuasion process i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent when the memorandum o f agreement i s concluded between the management and union b a r g a i n i n g teams and each party must then r e t u r n to i t s p r i n c i p a l s f o r a r a t i f i c a t i o n d e c i s i o n . B a r g a i n i n g team members are not l i k e l y to accept 'a p r i o r i ' a team l e a d e r ' s d e c i s i o n s . Again, from t h e i r r o l e s i t may be seen t h a t one f u n c t i o n i s to provide i n p u t . A p r i o r i d e c i s i o n making on g o a l s , s t r a t e g y and t a c t i c s of the team would tend to negate t h i s f u n c t i o n . There will,however, on o c c a s i o n be v a r i o u s members of the b a r g a i n i n g team wit h p a r t i c u l a r knowledge which c a r r i e s more weight i n the a l t e r n a t i v e selected.. F i n a l l y , as preceding s e c t i o n s o f t h i s study have already a s s e r t e d / t h e r e i s evidence to support the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t c o n f l i c t may w e l l occur among b a r g a i n i n g team members.. - 39 -Yet as F i l l e y (1975) notes, one o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f w i n - l o s e and l o s e - l o s e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n behavior i s the attempt to d e f e a t the o t h e r p a r t y i n the s i t u a t i o n . Under such circumstances i t i s reasonable to suggest t h a t the members w i l l v i e f o r power over the d e c i s i o n making process. The treatment process w i l l not be as normatively i n d i c a t e d . Winning the d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s t h e r e f o r e taken as the auto-c r a t i c s e l e c t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r a l t e r n a t i v e . Thus d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, by p r e c i p i t a t i n g a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making, may reduce the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the b a r g a i n i n g team. P r o p o s i t i o n IVA - When a b a r g a i n i n g team d e c i s i o n on the new or r e v i s e d c o l l e c t i v e agreement item i s made i n response to dys-f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors, the d e c i s i o n w i l l be made i n a n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n style.-As the fo r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has argued, a c r i t i c a l time f o r pe r s u a s i v e feedback o f b a r g a i n i n g team members i s when t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s engage i n thfe r a t i f i c a t i o n process, i . e . the d e c i s i o n to accept o r r e j e c t the ne g o t i a t e d settlement. Vroom and Yetton (1973)suggest t h a t group members are more w i l l i n g to c a r r y out or - 40 -enact a s o l u t i o n , i f they p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n . In the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team sphere, e n a c t i n g a s o l u t i o n means persuading the.team's p r i n c i p a l s t h a t the memorandum o f agreement i s the b e s t t h a t can be obtained. P r o p o s i t i o n IVB - When team d e c i s i o n s as to new or r e v i s e d c o l l e c t i v e agreement items are made i n a n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e manner the cumulative e f f e c t w i l l be to reduce the a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f team members i n persuading p r i n c i p a l s to r a t i f y the memorandum o f agreement. Fu r t h e r , i t i s suggested t h a t the i n t e r n a l d e c i s i o n o f the team members r e g a r d i n g the proposed memorandum o f agreement may a l s o be i n f l u e n c e d the e f f e c t o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC on d e c i s i o n making s t y l e . I f P r o p o s i t i o n IVA i s found to be supported then i t i s a l s o reasonable to suggest t h a t a team e x p e r i e n c i n g a high p r o p o r t i o n o f a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s may have suppressed disagreement with the nego t i a t e d package. In t h i s c r i t i c a l d e c i s i o n , however, the i n c r e a s e d p e r c e i v e d pressure from an important audience, i . e . the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n ( s ) , no lo n g e r a v o i d a b l e , may motivate a negative o r no recommendation stance. T h u s - 4.1 -the d e c i s i o n to accept, r e j e c t o r make no recommendation on the memorandum o f agreement may be p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e to the cumulative e f f e c t o f a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n s i n the team. P r o p o s i t i o n IVC - The cumulative e f f e c t o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s v i s - a - v i s non-p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s , as t h i s balance i s i n f l u e n c e d by d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, may be to i n f l u e n c e the o v e r a l l d e c i s i o n o f the team regarding i t s recommendation to i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s ; i . e . where n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s predominate the team recommendation w i l l be to r e j e c t , o r to make no recommendation. 2. Summary Pa r t I of t h i s chapter in t r o d u c e d the v a r i o u s r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s o f a b a r g a i n i n g team and developed a model o f t h e o r e t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s o f IOC on team behavior. A p p l i c a t i o n o f F i l l e y ' s (19 75) research on i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t , r e s o l u t i o n suggested o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s f o r IOC based upon p r o d u c t i v e and counterproductive response behaviors o f team members. P a r t i c u l a r l y , the o b s e r v a t i o n a l advantage o f f u r t h e r examination o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, as i d e n t i f i e d by F i l l e y ' s (1975) win-lose and l o s e - l o s e response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , - 42 -r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n . The exceeding o f a team member's to l e r a n c e to IOC promoted t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . P a r t I I o f the chapter developed a s e t o f s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n s concerning the p o s s i b l e outcomes o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC on b a r g a i n i n g team behavior. These p r o p o s i t i o n s suggested d i r e c t negative outcomes o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC are as f o l l o w s : time d e l a y s , i n c r e a s e d resource requirements, reduced o r mi s l e a d i n g i n p u t o r members, r u l e breaking behavior, and a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making. I n d i r e c t negative outcomes o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, by pe r p e t u a t i n g a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making, are suggested as the f o l l o w i n g : a lower commitment by team members to r a t i f i c a t i o n o f the c o l l e c t i v e agreement, and an i n c r e a s e d p r o b a b i l i t y o f the team making a r e j e c t i o n o r no recommendation d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g the concluded memorandum o f agreement. Chapter Three presents methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n developing a t e s t f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n s and o u t l i n e s the s e l e c t e d method o f study i n a r e a l - w o r l d environment. Chapter Four presents a f i e l d study o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team and f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to both the m e a s u r e a b i l i t y o f IOC and the proposed outcomes. 43-CHAPTER I I I - The Choice o f Methodology 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The s u b j e c t o f i n t e r 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 n f l i c t has been an i d e n t i f i e d focus of research a c t i v i t i e s o f b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t s f o r s e v e r a l decades. Among e a r l y noteworthy res e a r c h e r s to i d e n t i f y c o n f l i c t as an important v a r i a b l e i n the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior are March and Simon (1958), C y e r t and March (1963), and Pondy (1967). These res e a r c h e r s attempted to g a i n a conceptual understanding of c o n f l i c t and a l s o to i d e n t i f y the m u l t i p l e f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d to or caused c o n f l i c t i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . More r e c e n t l y the a t t e n t i o n o f b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h e r s has s h i f t e d towards s t u d y i n g methods of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and a l s o towards some of the more s p e c i f i c s o c i a l p a t t e r n s o f r e s o l u t i o n behavior such as b a r g a i n i n g and n e g o t i a t i o n . A p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development s c h o o l are perhaps the major innovators u s i n g f u n c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t to b r i n g about o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior changes. Leadership t h e o r i s t s , such as Vroom and Yetton (1973), have made attempts to i n c l u d e the c o n f l i c t v a r i a b l e as a determinant o f e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making w i t h i n the group context. With the great amount of re s e a r c h a c t i v i t y t h a t has been generated i n r e s p e c t to the t o p i c of - 44 -c o n f l i c t , one might assume t h a t there have a l s o developed a few standard methodologies f o r the measurement o f c o n f l i c t and i t s b e h a v i o r a l i n f l u e n c e s , i . e . causes and consequences. One purpose o f t h i s chapter i s t o determine i f t h i s has occur r e d . N a t u r a l l y , as one begins to determine what has been done i n regard to a p a r t i c u l a r area of i n t e r e s t , a f u r t h e r question o c c u r s : "What e l s e might be attempted?". T h i s then i s the second purpose f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g c o n f l i c t methodology. To paraphrase K a r l Weick (1974), l o o k i n g at the a l t e r n a t i v e s to whatwe are p r e s e n t l y doing i n studying o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior may plough some new ground f o r theory g e n e r a t i o n or c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . 2. The Purpose o f Research The choice o f r e s e a r c h methodology w i l l depend upon s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a . C e r t a i n l y the knowledgeable use o f a p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h design i n v o l v e s the awareness o f re s e a r c h method shortcomings. S e v e r a l methodological r e s e a r c h e r s such as Campbell and Stanley(1963), and Runkel and McGrath (1972), have produced u s e f u l guides f o r the i n v e s t i g a t o r . More c e n t r a l t o the p a r t i c u l a r choice o f a r e s e a r c h methodology, however, i s examination o f the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s purpose. T h i s r e f e r s t o the types o f questions the i n v e s t i g a t o r wants answered as w e l l as to the uses of the r e s u l t s . - 45 -s t e p p i n g i n t o the s k i n o f the r e s e a r c h e r as he/she i s contemplating r e s e a r c h design. The r e s e a r c h e r approaches a problem from a p a r t i c u l a r background o f knowledge, t r a i n i n g and experience i n both r e s e a r c h methodology and r e a l world phenomena.. A given r e s e a r c h e r thus has a p a r t i c u l a r p e r c e p t i o n o f the s t a t e o f the a r t i n regard to questions o f i n t e r e s t . F o r example, one r e s e a r c h e r on c o n f l i c t might p e r c e i v e the r e s e r a c h problem as a need f o r a d d i t i o n a l data generation about the s p e c i f i c nature o f c o n f l i c t i n order to generate t h e o r e t i c a l concepts which w i l l b e t t e r e x p l a i n c o n f l i c t u a l behavior and i t s consequences. Such an approach may be i n sympathy to Weick's and Pondy's appeals to b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t s f o r deeper and more i n n o v a t i v e searches f o r new data to support theory generation,(Weick,19 74;Pondy, 19 76). A l t e r n a t i v e l y , another r e s e a r c h e r may wish to t e s t out a theory developed elsewhere e.g. Tedeschil; Schlenker, and Bonoma's S u b j e c t i v e Expected U t i l i t y Theory o f C o n f l i c t (Tedeschi,1973). In t h i s l a t t e r i n s t a n c e the r e s e a r c h e r w i l l be more i n t e r e s t e d i n a t i g h t l y designed experiment which provides evidence to support o r r e j e c t the hypothesized c o n s t r u c t . Yet a t h i r d r e s e a r c h e r may be i n t e r e s t e d i n r e p l i c a t i o n of a research approach upon a d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t group to expand the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s , e.g. _ 46 -C h i l d ' s r e p l i c a t i o n of the Aston StudyCChild, 1972). I t would appear t h a t these three r e s e a r c h purposes w i l l have d i f f e r e n t methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and r e s e a r c h design components. I t i s concluded, i n regard to purpose, t h a t methodological s e l e c t i o n w i l l depend upon the stage o f the r e s e a r c h program and the p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s o f the r e s e a r c h e r . F i g u r e 4, below i s taken from Tedeschi, e t a l . , (1973) as an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the v a r i o u s stages o f theory generation and t e s t i n g as r e l a t e d to the r e a l world. **************** I n s e r t F i g u r e 4 **************** Stage 1, the r e a l world, i s formulated from the o b s e r v a t i o n s o f r e a r c h e r s and others concerning events t h a t are p e r c e i v e d t o have o c c u r r e d . In Stage 2, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s by v a r i o u s methods such as i n t e r v i e w s , h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s help to frame a rough c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of what v a r i a b l e s might be important towards developing a theory to e x p l a i n the phenomena. Gra d u a l l y as more data become a v a i l a b l e the t h e o r e t i c i a n i s able to generate an untested theory or model, Stage 3. Experimentation, Stage 4, then attempts to prove or disprove the cause-^effeet nature of the theory and i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . A t e s t e d theory then has c r e d i b i l i t y i n a l t e r i n g the behavior of the r e a l - 47 -Fi g u r e 4 Stages' O'f Theory Generation Stage 3 Stage 2 C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s and P r i m i t i v e Images S t a g e 1 R e a l World t i T h e o r i e s and Models (Formal Symbols) Stage 4 Experiments Source: Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonomo; 1973, p. 199. - 48 -world as the a c t o r s p e r c e i v e i t s u t i l i t y . From the above i t can be seen t a h t choice of r e s e a r c h methods w i l l depend l a r g e l y upon i n which development stage r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e the theory to be. 3. Present Methods of Researching C o n f l i c t The study o f c o n f l i c t has l a r g e l y been c a r r i e d out through the r e s e a r c h paradigm o f mixed motive games, a Stage 4 method. S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s have r e l i e d h e a v i l y upon l a b o r a t o r y experimentation u s i n g mixed motive dyadic o r "N" - person games as surrogates o f r e a l world exchange s i t u a t i o n s . . Rubin and Brown (1975) note t h a t one p a r t i c u l a r game, the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma, "has given r i s e t o hundreds o f experimental s t u d i e s " (Rubin and Brown, 1975, p. 297). Tedeschi, et a l . , (1973) suggest t h a t v a r i o u s game types can be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the r i c h n e s s o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t may occur between s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the game. In t h i s context they view the "minimal s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n " game f i r s t o u t l i n e d by Sidowski, Wycoff and Tabory (1956) and f u r t h e r u t i l i z e d by K e l l y , Thibaut, R a d l o f f and Mundy (1962) as a simple game. The Acme-Bolt Trucking game developed by Deutsch and Krauss (1960, 1962) i s a complex game because i t attempts to e n r i c h the s o c i a l environment wi t h more r e a l world c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h i s r i c h n e s s of _ 49 s o c i a l environment v a r i a b l e w i t h i n a game paradigm has in c r e a s e d the methodological s i g n i f i c a n c e o f u s i n g a l a b o r a t o r y t e s t v e h i c l e f o r approximating a r e a l world o f circumstance. Yet the mixed motive game paradigm has not gone without c r i t i c i s m . F i r s t , Rubin and Brown (1975) suggest, "...the study of b a r g a i n i n g needs to f i n d a way of developing r i c h e r and more i n t e r e s t i n g l a b paradigms than are p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e " (Rubin and Brown, 1975, p. 297). Second, they suggest from t h e i r review o f game resea r c h t h a t many o f the manipulated o r premeasured independent v a r i a b l e s are a consequence o f experimental economics r a t h e r than i n t r i n s i c i n t e r e s t o r t h e o r e t i c a l importance. T h i r d , Rubin and Brown(1975) note that the su b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n game research are u s u a l l y c o l l e g e age, middle c l a s s students. F i n a l l y , Rubin and Brown (1975) suggest 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 are hard t o measure i n the l a b game paradigm due to the presence o f more v i s i b l e s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . C a r l Stevens' (1963) t r e a t i s e on Strategy and C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g N e g o t i a t i o n s i n c l u d e s comments upon the use of game theory as a methodological t o o l f o r stu d y i n g the process o f n e g o t i a t i o n s . He summarizes t h i s d i s c u s s i o n as f o l l o w s : "Generally speaking, the format o f game theory a n a l y s i s i s such as to exclude frOm the a n a l y s i s the many n e g o t i a t o r y phenomenon o f prime importance and i n t e r e s t . T a c t i c a l _ 50 _ e n t i t i e s which may be accommodated by the a n a l y s i s , f o r example, c o e r c i v e not b l u f f s , are t r e a t e d o u t s i d e the formal s t r u c t u r e o f the game and i n such a way as to a b s t r a c t from the most i n t e r e s t i n g problems a s s o c i a t e d with them. Although i n p r i n c i p l e some such t a c t i c s (moves) might be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the game matrix, the a n a l y t i c a l gain to be had th e r e by i s n o t immediately obvious" (Stevens, 1963, p. 156). Stevens goes on to suggest t h a t the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f game a n a l y s i s t o the theory o f n e g o t i a t i o n ends where the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n t e r e s t begin. Levinson a l s o a t t a c k s the use of game theory f o r st u d y i n g the process o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . Drawing from V i c k e r y ' s c r i t i q u e o f games, Levinson notes "The most b a s i c d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s from the f a c t t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n o f game theory r e q u i r e s t h a t the "payoff matrix" be completely known i n advance by each p l a y e r and t h a t i t be i d e n t i c a l f o r each p l a y e r ... the n e g o t i a t i n g process i t s e l f cannot be analyzed i n terms o f game theory, s i n c e the former i s a dynamic process where as the l a t t e r i s s t a t i s t i c i n i t s f o r m u l a t i o n " (Levinson,1966,p.11). V i c k e r y and Levinson's c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t game theory "says r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e about the r e a l world o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g " (Levinson, 1966, p. 12). Before t o t a l l y d i s r e g a r d i n g games, however, i t i s important t o review some o f the comments o f Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma (1975) on the appropr i a t e use of games as re s e a r c h t o o l s . E x t r a c t i n g from t h e i r arguments, i t can be s t a t e d t h a t the authors make a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between experimental games i n models, i n computer s i m u l a t i o n s and i n man machine s i m u l a t i o n s . The l a t t e r two r e f e r to a t l e a s t p a r t i a l attempts a t theory c o n s t r u c t i o n whereas the former serves the f u n c t i o n o f theory e v a l u a t i o n . "Games are e s s e n t i a l l y t o o l s o f experimentation to be used i n c o n t r o l i n t e r a c t i o n s e t t i n g s i n which c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t v a r i a b l e s are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y manipulated. Games are t o o l s o f s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o v e r y , and r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s t h a t employ them must e v e n t u a l l y be used f o r the purpose of theorv c o n s t r u c t i o n o r theory e v a l u a t i o n . " (Tedeschi, e t a l , 1975, p. 204). They f u r t h e r conclude t h a t games may have i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y . However, the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n t i s t has too r e a d i l y transformed the f i n d i n g s o f a game experiment to g e n e r a l i z a b l e c o n s t r u c t s . In oth e r words, e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y has not been s u f f i c i e n t l y researched. In c o n c l u s i o n , games, such as mixed-motive experiments, may be ap p r o p r i a t e t o o l s f o r theory v a l i d a t i o n . However to generate a theory o f the i n f l u e n c e o f IOC on the behavior o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team i s to extend t h e i r use beyond accepted methodological p r i n c i p l e s . A second major approach to the study o f c o n f l i c t has been to use q u e s t i o n n a i r e data. Kochan (1975) used t h i s method to study c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i n municip a l f i r e departments i n the U.S.A. Questionnaire surveys have a l s o been used as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f - 52 -r e a l s i t u a t i o n s to which respondents p r o j e c t how they would behave i n a given s e t o f d e s c r i b e d circumstances. Marwell and Schmitt (1967) used t h i s technique to study s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s e s . Thomas and Kilmann (1977) have some r a t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s i n regard to the i n f l u e n c e o f s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y f a c t o r s s p e c i f i c a l l y as r e l a t e d to the use o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n determining e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n techniques. In p a r t i c u l a r , examining the o p e r a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s used by Blake and Mouton, Lawrence and Lorsch, and H a l l , they found t h a t respondents l i k e l y are answering as they p e r c e i v e they should respond r a t h e r than as they a c t u a l l y r e a c t to c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . Thomas and Kilmann conclude: "In terms o f research design, the r e s u l t s a l s o underscore the d e s i r a b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g observable o r other o b j e c t i v e measures where p o s s i b l e to reduce the i n t r u s i o n o f s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n t o the data, o r a t l e a s t o f o b t a i n i n g r a t i n g s of d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s from independent sources to minimize the halo e f f e c t . " (Thomas and Kilmann, 1977,. p., 752). These c o n c l u s i o n s are supported by Krupp i n regard to March and Simon's measure o f c o n f l i c t as w e l l (Thomas and Kilmann, 1977). Another method f o r stu d y i n g c o n f l i c t noted i n the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior - 5 3 -l i t e r a t u r e i n v o l v e s g a t h e r i n g n a t u r a l data from o r g a n i z a t i o n s through f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s . These methods are more commonly termed case s t u d i e s or a s e r i e s o f case s t u d i e s , such as c a r r i e d out by Levinson (1966), Stevens (1963), and Walton and McKersie (1965). Nachmais and Nachmais (1976) provide a s u c c i n c t d e s c r i p t i o n o f the case study approach to data c o l l e c t i o n : "The One Shot Case Study i n v o l v e s an o b s e r v a t i o n of a s i n g l e group. T h i s design i s an o b s e r v a t i o n o n l y of what e x i s t s at the time o f the study; as such, i t has no c o n t r o l over e x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c f a c t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , i t does not allow f o r manipulation o f the independent v a r i a b l e s o r f o r b e f o r e - a f t e r o r c o n t r o l group-experimental-group comparison. Furthermore, s i n c e case s t u d i e s analyze s i n g l e unsampled systems, they are weak i n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n as w e l l . S t u d i e s t h a t employ the One Shot Case Study design have no checks on i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y and thus are o f l i t t l e use i n t e s t i n g c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s . Indeed, t h i s design has been denoted by some methodologists as pre-experimental. However, the One Shot Case Study i s u s e f u l i n e x p l o r a t o r y research S e l l i t z , e t a l , (1959) designate i t as " s t i m u l a t i n g i n s i g h t , " m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t the i n t e n s i v e case-study approach i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l i n unformulated areas, where i t might suggest hypotheses f o r f u r t h e r research".(Nachmais and Nachmais, 1976, p.42). From the f o r e g o i n g i t can be seen that as with the o t h e r methodologies, there are s e v e r a l shortcomings as w e l l as advantages a s s o c i a t e d with the case study method. Runkel and McGrath, (1972) i n a s s e s s i n g the pros and - 54 -cons o f u t i l i z i n g the case study* design conclude: "the i n v e s t i g a t o r ends up l e a r n i n g a l o t about complex and meaningful b e h a v i o r a l systems, but he does not know with h i g h c o n f i d e n c e what he has l e a r n e d . " (Runkel and McGrath, 1972,p.94). One p a r t i c u l a r problem o f the case-method concerns the r o l e of observer. As noted by the now c e l e b r a t e d "Hawthorne e f f e c t " , r e searchers i n f l u e n c e , o f t e n u n w i t t i n g l y , the system under study. Yet methodologists now view t h i s i s a problem not onl y o f the f i e l d r e s e a r c h designs but a l s o o f l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s ( P h i l l i p s , 1976; Runkel and McGrath, 1972). On t h i s p o i n t , Runkel and McGrath i l l u s t r a t e the rese a r c h e r ' s dilemma; "whether to l e a r n something with r e l a t i v e l y low confidence about the e x i s t i n g system o r to l e a r n something with r e l a t i v e l y h i g h confidence about a system t h a t i s now d i f f e r e n t from what i t was when the resear c h e r gathered i n f o r m a t i o n about i t " (Runkel and McGrath, 1972, p. 90). Thus i n t e r v e n t i o n or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c r e a s e s confidence at a p r i c e . In a case study the degree o f c e r t a i n t y i s a l s o lowered by the hig h p o t e n t i a l f o r missed v a r i a b l e s thereby c r e a t i n g "unknown e r r o r " t h a t confounds the observations (Runkel and McGrath, 1972). I t might appear t h a t the case study approach has l i t t l e to o f f e r a study o f IOC. Yet there i s a s p e c i f i c advantage l e n d i n g weight to i t s use. I t has been p r e v i o u s l y a s s e r t e d t h a t the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team _ 55: -o p e r a t i o n i s a ' r i c h ' environment. As such i t represents a r e l a t i v e l y complex s e t of o r g a n i z a t i o n behavior events which, i t i s b e l i e v e d , would be most d i f f i c u l t to r e -c r e a t e i n an- a r t i f i c i a l environment. The c r i t i c i s m s of o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s r esearchers on t h i s p o i n t have a l r e a d y been noted. E x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y i s t h e r e f o r e a major i s s u e i n i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s r e s e a r c h . The case study method i s ranked high on t h i s methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As Runkel and McGrath c o m m e n t a f i e l d study can be a matchless way o f l e a r n i n g the v a r i a b l e s , t h e i r ranges and combinations t h a t might reward study by more r i g o r o u s s t r a t e g y " (Runkel and McGrath, 1972, p.. 94). A l s o , Nachmais and Nachmais (1976) quoted above, support t h i s c o n c l u s i o n as t o the u t i l i t y o f the method. From t h i s review i t i s concluded t h a t there i s no p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h route c l e a r of methodological impediments. The choice t h e r e f o r e becomes one of t r a d e - o f f s and r e s e a r c h e r p r e f e r e n c e . A l s o the choice must be made on the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f data and w i t h regard f o r the p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e s under study. The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a r e s e a r c h e r to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a c t u a l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team experience i s r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t . The n e g o t i a t i o n process, a t l e a s t u n t i l i t s c o n c l u s i o n i s n e c e s s a r i l y surrounded - 56 -w i t h a h i g h w a l l o f secrecy and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y as to the i n t e r n a l team process. Employers and unions, t h e r e f o r e , are most r e l u c t a n t t o i n c r e a s e these c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y concerns by p e r m i t t i n g observers access to t h e i r " i n n e r sanctum." A l s o , the time commitment necessary f o r an i n v e s t i g a t o r to observe a team from formation to d i s s o l u t i o n presents a pragmatic r e s e a r c h problem. As the unique o p p o r t u n i t y o f d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g on an a c t u a l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team was a v a i l a b l e , the s e l e c t i o n o f a quasi-case method of a n a l y s i s was perhaps a n a t u r a l one. The term quasi-case method i s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e from the c l a s s i c case method. The l a t t e r e l i m i n a t e s o r avoids p a r t i c i p a n t i n f l u e n c e as much as p o s s i b l e . As more f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter, the data g a t h e r i n g p o r t i o n of t h i s study was c a r r i e d out while the researcher was a p a r t i c i p a n t . The a n a l y s i s and r e p o r t i n g p o r t i o n s more c l o s e l y f o l l o w the c l a s s i c case method. Therefore, the term quasi-case method i s used. The f o r e g o i n g methodology review a l s o provides evidence suggesting t h i s c l o s e approximation o f a case i s a p r e f e r e n t i a l method of s t u d y i n g d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC given i t s e a r l y stage o f t h e o r e t i c a l development. - 57 -4. An Approach To The Study o f B a r g a i n i n g Team IOC Min d f u l o f the c o n s t r a i n t s suggested by the pr e v i o u s s e c t i o n f i t i s important a t the o u t s e t o f t h i s s e c t i o n t o s p e c i f y the p e r c e i v e d stage o f research development reg a r d i n g b a r g a i n i n g team c o n f l i c t before suggesting a methodological approach. From a review o f the g e n e r a l l i t e r a t u r e on i n t e r 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 n f l i c t as w e l l as the s p e c i f i c t o p i c o f c o n f l i c t as r e l a t e d t o b a r g a i n i n g and n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h i s author i s o f the o p i n i o n t h a t c o n f l i c t i s s t i l l a very ambiguous concept. In p a r t i c u l a r , r e s e a r c h e r s do not have a very good p i c t u r e o f what s o c i a l behaviors can be c l a s s i f i e d as c o n f l i c t u a l i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. In r e l a t i o n t o the Tedeschi, e t a l , model noted e a r l i e r the study o f b a r g a i n i n g team c o n f l i c t i s at the p r i m i t i v e images;Stage. T h i s suggests t h a t data gathering i n g r e a t e r depth i s ap p r o p r i a t e to generate more t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about c o n f l i c t i n the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team s i t u a t i o n . Methods used f o r data generation are d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n , i n t e r v i e w s and questionnaires.. As to the p o s s i b l e choice between these f i e l d w o r k methods, S i e b e r (19 73) has made r e l e v a n t comments which suggest an i n t e r p l a y between o b s e r v a t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w s and survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as having value. The methodological approach adopted f o r t h i s study - 5& -o f b a r g a i n i n g team d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC outcomes i s to o b t a i n f i e l d o b servations o f an a c t u a l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. The data c o l l e c t e d provide a b a s i s f o r case a n a l y s i s o f the v a r i a b l e s o f i n t e r e s t . In c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the multi-method approach suggested above, the f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s are supplemented by i n t e r v i e w and q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses. In c o n c l u s i o n , the research approach chosen f o r t h i s study i s a c l e a r compromise r e c o g n i z i n g the methodological impediments o f i n i t i a l low g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y and h i g h u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t are being made. From the review o f c o n f l i c t r e s e a r c h t o d a t e , i t i s concluded t h a t a u s e f u l purpose of f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would be generation o f a d d i t i o n a l data r e l a t e d to c o n f l i c t w i t h i n the dynamics o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. As noted e a r l i e r , r e s e a r c h i s needed to pry open the black box o f b a r g a i n i n g team process. A f i e l d study o f one s p e c i f i c b a r g a i n i n g team experience i s considered a convenient and u s e f u l way o f doing so. The quasi-case method f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study o f IOC behavior i s o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s t e p s : Step I: The re s e a r c h e r , as p a r t i c i p a n t / o b s e r v e r , became a member o f a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. By j o i n i n g a team the i n s i d e i n f o r m a t i o n as to behaviors - 59 -e x h i b i t e d d u r i n g the team's caucuses, j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s , and other a c t i v i t i e s were d i r e c t l y a v a i l a b l e . Step I I : During the a c t u a l b a r g a i n i n g team experience o b s e r v a t i o n s of team member behaviors were noted i n an i n v e s t i g a t o r maintained l o g . Step I I I : Supplemental i n f o r m a t i o n on observed behaviors was gathered from o t h e r team members through p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s and a q u e s t i o n n a i r e of p e r c e i v e d d e c i s i o n s t y l e s employed i n the i n t e r a c t i o n processes. Step IV: A t the c o n c l u s i o n o f the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g experience o b s e r v a t i o n notes, i n t e r v i e w m a t e r i a l , and survey responses were analyzed f o r i n d i c a t i o n s o f IOC behavior through the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f i v e item o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f IOC presented i n Chapter Two. S i m i l a r l y , d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, as a s p e c i f i c subset o f behaviors, was i s o l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the seven item counterproductive response behavior t e s t . Step V: A n a l y s i s o f the m a t e r i a l then i n v o l v e d - 60 -d i s t i n g u i s h i n g outcomes o r e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors on the study team. The noted e f f e c t s were i n d i c a t o r s o f the support or lack thereof f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n s developed i n Chapter Two. During the a n a l y s i s data were a l s o gathered as t o the u t i l i t y o f the IOC and d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t s . A c t u a l f i e l d study o b s e r v a t i o n s and a n a l y s i s are re p o r t e d i n Chapter Four. Conclusions from the a n a l y s i s and recommendations r e g a r d i n g f u r t h e r research on b a r g a i n i n g team IOC are the s u b j e c t s o f Chapter F i v e . _ 61 -: CHAPTER IV - A F i e l d Study o f B a r g a i n i n g Team IOC 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The author accepted an o f f e r from a B r i t i s h Columbia employer t o a c t as t h e i r e x t e r n a l labour r e l a t i o n s p a r t i c i p a n t / a d v i s o r . I t should be emphasized t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t / a d v i s o r r o l e was not resea r c h o r i e n t e d i n the view o f the employer. The assigned r o l e , based on t r a i n i n g and p r i o r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g experience, was to advise and a s s i s t the employer i n a t t a i n i n g a workable and acceptable c o l l e c t i v e agreement. Data gathered i n support o f t h i s r e s e a r c h t h e r e f o r e was a secondary, p e r s o n a l concern. While combining the r o l e s o f r e s e a r c h e r and p a r t i c i p a n t / a d v i s o r may w e l l be c r i t i c i z e d from a p u r e l y academic standpoint,(see Chapter I I I ) , i t was the one way o f overcoming the access arid time c o n s t r a i n t problems i n t h i s labour r e l a t i o n s r e s e a r c h . The nature of re s e a r c h on r e a l world c o n f l i c t n e c e s s i t a t e s the use o f f i c t i t i o u s names f o r the^ o r g a n i z a t i o n arid i t s a c t o r s . The d e s c r i p t i o n o f s e t t i n g and background are expressed i n general terms f o r the same reason. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the background r e l a t e d to the i n d u s t r y , the a c t o r s , and the n e g o t i a t i o n process i s presented f i r s t f o l l o w ed by d e t a i l s o f the o b s e r v a t i o n _ 62 methods employed. F i n a l l y the observed b e h a v i o r a l i n c i d e n t s are r e l a t e d to the p r o p o s i t i o n s s t a t e d i n Chapter I I . 2. Background Northwinds C o l l e g e i s a two year post secondary i n s t i t u t i o n o f f e r i n g courses to students i n academic, v o c a t i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l programs. As w e l l , the C o l l e g e has a care e r d i v i s i o n o f f e r i n g a wide v a r i e t y o f courses through n i g h t s c h o o l and s i m i l a r extended educ a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . The Co l l e g e i s funded by the P r o v i n c i a l Government, through the Department o f Education. P o l i c y i s determined by a Co l l e g e C o u n c i l which i s composed of s e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the community (appointed by the M i n i s t e r o f Education) and school boards ( e l e c t e d ) . Employee r e l a t i o n s p o l i c y i s the j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f two C o u n c i l committees with o v e r l a p p i n g membership. Community c o l l e g e s are r e l a t i v e l y new to the B.C. e d u c a t i o n a l environment. Many o f them, i n c l u d i n g Northwinds, have experienced severe growth pains both i n o p e r a t i n g and c a p i t a l circumstances. These t r o u b l e s have been r e f l e c t e d i n changing p o l i c i e s and d i r e c t i o n s o f the C o u n c i l d i c t a t e d o f t e n by the e x i g e n c i e s o f the moment. Thus, the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l environment must be c l a s s i f i e d as t u r b u l e n t . - 63 The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Northwinds C o l l e g e i s composed o f a P r i n c i p a l , B u r s a r , a n d s e v e r a l Deans. There i s no f o r m a l l y i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n n e l / i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s p o s i t i o n although many o f these f u n c t i o n s are c a r r i e d out by v a r i o u s members of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r i n c i p a l l y the Bursar. Formalized u n i o n i z a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h the f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n two years p r i o r t o t h i s study. The C o l l e g e and the F a c u l t y A s s o c i a t i o n had j u s t concluded n e g o t i a t i o n of a two year agreement as t h i s study began. Co l l e g e b a r g a i n i n g with F a c u l t y was c a r r i e d out by some members o f the C o u n c i l i n co n j u n c t i o n with the P r i n c i p a l and Bursar. I n i t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h Northwinds C o l l e g e was p r i o r to commencement o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . A p p l i c a t i o n to the Labour R e l a t i o n s Board o f B.C. f o r union c e r t i f i c a t i o n had al r e a d y been i n i t i a t e d by a l o c a l o f a p r o v i n c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n o f non-teaching employees. A f f i l i a t i o n o f these employees with a p r o v i n c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n came about as a r e s u l t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f o r t s by the a s s o c i a t i o n i n c o n j u n c t i o n with f r u s t r a t e d attempts by an i n f o r m a l non-teaching s t a f f group t o renew and upgrade economic and personnel p o l i c y items. The c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team s t u d i e d i n t h i s case was s e l e c t e d , i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the author, to engage i n c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s aimed a t a c h i e v i n g a f i r s t agreement with t h i s y e t to be c e r t i f i e d trade - 64 -union o f non-teaching s t a f f . The team's o p e r a t i o n a c t u a l l y commenced p r i o r to union c e r t i f i c a t i o n . I t d e a l t f i r s t w ith i t s own goals and r o l e s , then managerial e x c l u s i o n i s s u e s , and f i n a l l y c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s proper. The p a r t i c i p a n t / o b s e r v e r r o l e spanned the time p e r i o d o f approximately one year. There was a v a r y i n g frequency o f b a r g a i n i n g team meetings ' du r i n g the yea r ranging from a minimum o f once o r twice a month to a maximum o f approximately f i f t e e n working days p e r month d u r i n g j o i n t n e g o t i a t i o n p e r i o d s . The p r i n c i p a l a c t o r s , i . e . team members, i n t h i s study were three members o f Northwinds C o l l e g e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and C o l l e g e C o u n c i l group and the author. Team member A was an appointed member o f the College C o u n c i l whose primary r o l e was to provide i n p u t and feedback between p o l i c y makers of the C o u n c i l and the b a r g a i n i n g team. Team Member B was a member o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n p u t and feedback between the b a r g a i n i n g team and o t h e r members o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Team Member C , a l s o a member o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , was more d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the day t o day management o f the non-teaching s t a f f . As such, Team Member C pr o v i d e d d i r e c t i n p u t on the e x i s t i n g employer r e l a t i o n s p o l i c i e s and procedures and the f e a s i b i l i t y o f changing same. The f o u r t h member - 65 -of the team was the author a c t i n g as a d v i s o r , as a d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a n t on the b a r g a i n i n g team as chairman, and i n j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s o f t e n , although not always, as spokesman. I t was agreed t h a t , i n the event o f unresolved d i s p u t e s , the author as chairman o f the team had the r i g h t to make a f i n a l determination of the i s s u e i n qu e s t i o n . I t was e s t a b l i s h e d i n the f i r s t team meeting t h a t each member i n a d d i t i o n to h i s input/feedback r o l e s was also"expected to share h i s personal recommendations as to s t r a t e g y and content d e c i s i o n s d u r i n g the team experience. P a r t i a l l y due to d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, some s t r u c t u r a l changes occurred over the one year p e r i o d . F i r s t , Team Member A was p a r t i a l l y r e p l a c e d by another member o f c o u n c i l , D, who assumed an a l t e r n a t e ' s r o l e i n regard to in p u t and feedback to c o u n c i l . D d i d not attend j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . A second s t r u c t u r a l change occu r r e d near the end o f the year when Team Member C r e s i g n e d from Northwinds C o l l e g e . C was not r e p l a c e d on the team. F i n a l l y , on some occasions both A and D p a r t i c i p a t e d i n team caucuses i n p a r t i c u l a r when C o u n c i l concern was hig h regarding the slow progress o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . 0 - 66 -From the f o r e g o i n g , i t i s a l r e a d y apparent t h a t the d i v i d i n g l i n e between team members and o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s can q u i c k l y become b l u r r e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y when n e g o t i a t i o n s are as p r o t r a c t e d as i n t h i s case. For study purposes, however, the team s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d as A, B, C,and the author, w i t h A r e p l a c e d or supplemented by D on some o c c a s i o n s . The study team was s u c c e s s f u l i n a c h i e v i n g a f i r s t agreement a f t e r seven months o f d i r e c t n e g o t i a t i o n s . Agreement was reached a f t e r mediation had been attempted by a Department o f Labour o f f i c e r . S t r i k e n o t i c e had been served on Northwinds C o l l e g e before mediation commenced; however, a s t r i k e d i d not occur. The mediation o f f i c e r ' s r o l e i s not seen as s i g n i f i c a n t to outcomes o f IOC recorded i n t h i s study as he p r i m a r i l y d e a l t with i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t . 3. Observation and A n a l y s i s Process During the e n t i r e team experience, notes were kept o f both b a r g a i n i n g team caucus meetings and union/ management b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n observations Of c o n f l i c t behavior were noted. In one to one conversations, o b s e r v a t i o n s were checked out with o t h e r members o f the team and any v a r i a t i o n s i n pe r c e p t i o n s o f events subsequently noted. A post-b a r g a i n i n g i n t e r v i e w w i t h the one a v a i l a b l e team member was a l s o conducted. Observations made i n t h i s i n t e r v i e w are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC presented i n the next s e c t i o n . These data are the b a s i s f o r the IOC a n a l y s i s . By a p p l y i n g the o p e r a t i o n a l t e s t s f o r IOC presented i n Chapter Two,dysfunctional IOC behaviors and e f f e c t s are i d e n t i f i e d . As a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , p r i m a r i l y t o counteract any p e r c e p t i o n a l b i a s on the p a r t of the observer, a midpoint and endpoint q u e s t i o n n a i r e on p e r c e p t i o n s o f d e c i s i o n making s t y l e s was d i s t r i b u t e d to the two remaining team members. The r e p o r t of the analyses and f i n d i n g s are presented along with each d e s c r i p t i o n . The r e s u l t s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses are presented a t the end o f the next s e c t i o n . 4. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC Behavior A n a l y s i s of the case m a t e r i a l demonstrated the p a r t i c u l a r relevance o f Pondy's (1973) process model o f c o n f l i c t . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t behavior seems to take on a cumulative nature. A n a l y s i s of the data showed t h a t w hile one o r more observed IOC behaviors c o u l d be c l e a r l y c l a s s i f i e d as d y s f u n c t i o n a l , according to the seven item counterproductive response c r i t e r i a , i n each case there were previous IOC behaviors and responses which formed p a r t o f the t o t a l c o n f l i c t p i c t u r e . As a r e s u l t , the nature of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC a s s o c i a t e d with _ 68 -the study team i s more c o r r e c t l y d e s c r i b e d as a d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC problem o f t e n ebbing and r i s i n g throughout the b a r g a i n i n g team p r o c e s s . An IOC problem i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a s e t o f r e l a t e d IOC b e h a v i o r s . The a n a l y s i s a l s o shows t h a t the longer a problem remains unresolved, the more c l e a r l y c o unterproductive became the response behaviors of the b a r g a i n i n g team members. The o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t b a r g a i n i n g team d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s a s e t of problems r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l behaviors i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g of the study which i s more thoroughly d i s c u s s e d - i n Chapter F i v e . F i v e d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC problems were i d e n t i f i e d . The f o l l o w i n g subsections p r e s e n t summaries of dys-f u n c t i o n a l IOC data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the f i e l d study, t e s t r e s u l t s determining t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n as dys-f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior and evidence concerning the proposed e f f e c t s of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC. A. Problem I : C o l l e g e C o u n c i l C r i t i c i s m of C o n t r o l of Operation Costs i„ D e s c r i p t i o n : For a v a r i e t y o f reasons t h e r e e x i s t e d among c e r t a i n i n f l u e n t i a l members of Northwinds C o l l e g e C o u n c i l a r e l a t i v e l y c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n of p a s t ad-m i n i s t r a t i v e performance regarding what appeared t o be e x c e s s i v e o p e r a t i n g c o s t i n c r e a s e s . The c r i t i c a l o p i n i o n was expressed t o the* author by members A and D, C o u n c i l - 69 -r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , upon f i r s t c o n t a c t w i t h them. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , B and C, were aware o f t h i s o p i n i o n and f r e q u e n t l y responded to p e r c e i v e d e x p r e s s i o n o f i t by o f f e r i n g counter-arguments based p r i m a r i l y upon an i n n e r knowledge of the c o l l e g e ' s p a s t f i n a n c i a l h i s t o r y . The d i f f e r e n c e s pervaded s e v e r a l b a r g a i n i n g team meetings and continued t o surface throughout the e n t i r e year o f data c o l l e c t i o n . C o u n c i l c r i t i c i s m was p a r t i c u l a r l y focused upon team member C, who on numerous occasions responded by defending the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f ' s p a s t and c u r r e n t awareness o f f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c a r e f u l c o n t r o l of o p e r a t i n g costs.. Demonstrated IOC a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b a r g a i n i n g team behavior i s d e s c r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s : 1) "C t e n t a t i v e l y agreed to. a compromise p o s i t i o n regarding v o l u n t a r y e x c l u s i o n from union c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n f i r s t l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s provided A would agree to ga i n C o u n c i l support f o r more a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f . Agreement by A, a C o u n c i l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , would s i g n i f y to C a r e l a x a t i o n o f the t i g h t f i n a n c i a l c o n t r o l s imposed by C o u n c i l p r e v i o u s l y . The commencement o f j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s was delayed by t h i s i n t e r p l a y between C and A. - 7 0 -2) The author, A and D spent two hours i n p r i v a t e s e s s i o n d i s c u s s i n g , but not r e s o l v i n g , the ge n e r a l problem of C o u n c i l ' s t i g h t r e i n on o p e r a t i n g c o s t s t h a t had r e s u l t e d from t h e i r doubts r e g a r d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e performance. Inadequate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support s t a f f was d i r e c t l y causing delays i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g m a t e r i a l . 3) At a lunchtime b a r g a i n i n g team meeting a l s o attended by D, C and D engaged i n a heated, p e r s o n a l i z e d d i s c u s s i o n as the t i g h t c o n t r o l s and each i n d i r e c t l y r e f e r r e d to the d i f f e r i n g u n d e r l y i n g o p i n i o n s o f who was p r o p e r l y to blame f o r pre v i o u s 'excessive* o p e r a t i n g c o s t i n c r e a s e s . Emotions r a i s e d i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n continued throughout the afternoon team caucus as C, apparently s e e t h i n g , c o n t i n u a l l y a t t a c k e d b a r g a i n i n g suggestions and p o s i t i o n s o f f e r e d by A. A l e f t the meeting e a r l y . The author made s e v e r a l n e g o t i a t i n g d e c i s i o n s i n the absence o f one o r more team members. 4) A r e p o r t e d t o the author t h a t the d i f f e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s between A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and C o u n c i l regarding r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r exce s s i v e p a s t o p e r a t i n g c o s t s i s one reason f o r - 71 -nonattendance a t team caucuses. A f e l t , " t h e y are attempting to thwart my reappointment to C o l l e g e C o u n c i l " , which was up f o r renewal s h o r t l y . Due t o A's c o n t i n u i n g absence from team caucuses and j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g meetings, D p a r t i a l l y r e p l a c e d A who r e t a i n e d o f f i c i a l s t a t u s as a team member. D's gre a t e r involvement r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l updating meetings and w r i t t e n communications. D d i d not r e g u l a r l y a t t e n d team caucuses o r j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . However, he was a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n content d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the p o t e n t i a l c o l l e c t i v e agreement. The data a l s o shows B's behavior e v e n t u a l l y to be a f f e c t e d by the c r i t i c i s m o f the f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y problem. For example, B p e r s o n a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d the apparent s p l i t between C o u n c i l and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n as an i n d i c a t i o n o f f u t u r e l a c k o f support by C o u n c i l t o be expected i n regard to the r e s u l t s a t t a i n e d by the b a r g a i n i n g team. B v o c a l i z e d t h i s concern on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . A l s o , d u r i n g the middle p e r i o d o f b a r g a i n i n g , B demonstrated a "who c a r e s ? " approach towards a c h i e v i n g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g o b j e c t i v e s . T h i s approach was observed by the reduced amount o f input B c o n t r i b u t e d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , and l a t e 72-a r r i v a l a t and e a r l y departure from caucus meetings. When questioned about the reason behind t h i s apparent change of a t t i t u d e , B o f f e r e d o t h e r competing workload pressures as an e x p l a n a t i o n . B a l s o r e f e r r e d to the c o n t i n u i n g absence o f C and s t a t e d t h a t C o u n c i l was e i t h e r not concerned about the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g outcomes o r , more l i k e l y was "hanging" the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on the b a r g a i n i n g team. F o l l o w i n g the l a t t e r expressed reason, B's middle p e r i o d behavior can be i n t e r p r e t e d as withdrawal from a p e r c e i v e d awkward s i t u a t i o n . The apparent c o n t i n u i n g C o u n c i l pressure over o p e r a t i n g c o s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a l s o expressed by C as a major reason f o r h i s eventual r e s i g n a t i o n from Northwinds C o l l e g e . T h i s r e s i g n a t i o n permanently reduced the a v a i l a b l e i n p u t on the b a r g a i n i n g team.. i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n d i c a t o r s : A p p l y i n g F i l l e y ' s (19 75) seven win-lose and l o s e - l o s e f a c t o r s as a counterproductive response t e s t of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i t i s found: F a c t o r Evidence 1. We-they d i s t i n c t i o n The we-they d i s t i n c t i o n between C o u n c i l members A and D, and C (Administration) p a r t i c u l a r l y i s e v i d e n t . _ 73 -F a c t o r C c o n t 1d) 2 . Atmosphere o f t o t a l d e f e a t or v i c t o r y 3. Own p o i n t o f view 4. Emphasis on a t t a i n i n g a s o l u t i o n 5 . P e r s o n a l i z e d c o n f l i c t 6 . U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s Evidence Withdrawal and r e s i g n a t i o n a c t i o n s by A and C r e s p e c t i v e l y must be c o n sidered as d e f e a t outcomes Each p a r t y appeared to h o l d to h i s own p o i n t of view even i n open c o n f r o n t a t i o n . The i n t e r a c t i o n s , such as the compromise p r o p o s a l and the a d d i t i o n a l meetings , were focused upon s o l u t i o n s although the author attempted problem s o l v i n g with a goal o r i e n t a t i o n on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . C o n f l i c t was d e f i n i t e l y p e r s o n a l i z e d . The c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n processes, mainly c o n f r o n t a t i o n and w i t h -drawal, were l a r g e l y i n termixed with the o v e r a l l b a r g a i n i n g team meetings. - 7.4 -F a c t o r ( c o n t ' d) Evidence 7. Immediate disagreement When the problem was emphasized focused upon, i t consumed the a c t o r s ' f u l l a t t e n t i o n . I n t e r v e n t i o n by the author was necessary to r e d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n to the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g o b j e c t i v e s . i i i . P r o p o s i t i o n Support; Problem I lends evidence o f support t o s e v e r a l o f the p r o p o s i t i o n s . P r o p o s i t i o n I , t h a t the occurrence o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n a lengthening of the time taken to conclude a c o l l e c t i v e agreement,is supported by the evidence showing occurrence o f C's t r a d e o f f maneuver re g a r d i n g managerial e x c l u s i o n s . T h i s delayed r e s o l u t i o n o f the i s s u e and t h e r e f o r e the commencement of j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . P r o p o s i t i o n IA, t h a t where t i m e - l i m i t s prevent e x t e n t i o n o f the n e g o t i a t i n g process an outcome o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s an i n c r e a s e i n i n p u t s , i s supported by the evidence showing c o n s i d e r a b l e caucus time was u t i l i z e d i n attempting a r e s o l u t i o n to Problem I . - 75 " P r o p o s i t i o n U y t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n team member behavior t h a t e i t h e r withholds i n f o r m a t i o n i n p u t and/or presents m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , i s supported by evidence demonstrating a r e d u c t i o n i n in p u t by B, A and e v e n t u a l l y C. As a r e s u l t o f the charges and counter-charges o c c u r r i n g i n team caucuses, there i s a l s o some support seen f o r suggesting t h a t d u r i n g these p e r i o d s , m i s l e a d i n g input was r e c e i v e d . P r o p o s i t i o n I I I , t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n the breakdown o f p r e v i o u s l y agreed upon team r u l e s , i s supported by evidence o f non-attendance and l a t e attendance at caucuses. P r o p o s i t i o n IVA, t h a t n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making w i l l occur under d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC c o n d i t i o n s , i s supported by evidence t h a t s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s were made without b e n e f i t o f f u l l team d i s c u s s i o n o r agreement. P r o p o s i t i o n IVB, t h a t team member p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be reduced i n persuading p r i n c i p a l s to r a t i f y the memorandum o f agreement when d e c i s i o n s are made i n a n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i v e manner,is supported by evidence o f the r e s i g n a t i o n o f C. - 76 -B. Problem I I - Absence and withdrawal o f a Team Member T h i s problem, while probably c l o s e l y a l l i e d to Problem I i n r o o t cause, i s i n d i c a t e d s e p a r a t e l y because o f the v a r i a t i o n i n manifest IOC behaviors, i . D e s c r i p t i o n : Throughout the b a r g a i n i n g team experience, team member A had a problem o f attendance both dur i n g union management n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s and during team caucuses. As r e l a t e d e a r l i e r , A's primary r o l e was to provide input/feedback to C o u n c i l . A's absence, t h e r e f o r e , was cause f o r co n s i d e r a b l e concern by the remainder o f the team. A f t e r i n i t i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the b a r g a i n i n g team go a l s e t t i n g and r o l e determination meetings, A was i n t e r m i t t e n t l y absent d u r i n g the f i r s t h a l f o f the b a r g a i n i n g experience. T h i s f a c t was c o n t i n u a l l y commented upon by B and C, and the author was asked and encouraged by B and C to remedy the s i t u a t i o n by e i t h e r a s s u r i n g A's attendance o r somehow a l t e r i n g the- team s t r u c t u r e . A d d i t i o n a l p r i v a t e d i s c u s s i o n s with A and D achieved s h o r t term r e s u l t s . However^'s absences then r e o c c u r r e d . Some caucus time was spent e i t h e r w a i t i n g f o r an a n t i c i p a t e d showing o f A, or d i s c u s s i n g the absence of A. As time progressed, A's i n p u t as a p a r t i c i p a n t began t o be discounted by B. and C.When i n p u t was r e c e i v e d , o f t e n i n d i r e c t l y from A, i t was reviewed more c u r s o r i l y than was in p u t from B o r C. S e v e r a l n o n - f l a t t e r i n g comments concerning A's mo t i v a t i o n f o r team membership were o f f e r e d by B and C i n A's absence. In an attempt to maintain C o u n c i l i n p u t and feedback, as the r o l e o f A d i c t a t e d , D was drawn f a r more h e a v i l y i n t o b a r g a i n i n g team d i s c u s s i o n s from the midpoint on. One i n c i d e n t o f IOC as r e l a t e d t o d e c i s i o n making s t y l e o c c u r r e d as a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f A's absences. The team was committed to make a major counterproposal d u r i n g an evening s e s s i o n with the union. The p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s c o unterproposal had r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n by B and C; however ,A was absent d u r i n g most o f i t . In the afternoon p r e c e d i n g the evening n e g o t i a t i n g session,A attended the caucus,presenting a l o n g l i s t o f proposed changes. A f t e r a heated exchange p r i m a r i l y between the author and A, the author as chairman e x e r c i s e d h i s p r e r o g a t i v e to move ahead, d i s r e g a r d i n g many o f the proposed amendments. A was absent from the team f o r the remainder o f the b a r g a i n i n g p e r i o d , approximately f o u r months. A, however, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the f i n a l team caucus d u r i n g mediation and appeared very s u p p o r t i v e o f the team's r e s u l t s . D i s c u s s i o n w i t h a c l o s e f r i e n d (and a C o u n c i l member) o f A's confirmed the author's impression that A h e l d a - 78 -s t r o n g a v e r s i o n to the nature o f d i s c u s s i o n over c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and outcomes t a k i n g p l a c e i n the caucuses. A p r i v a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n with A confirmed t h a t t h i s , a long w i t h e x t e r n a l time pre s s u r e s and problem I , were reasons f o r withdrawal. A's absence a l s o was r e f e r r e d t o by B as d i s t r e s s i n g and c r e a t i n g a h i g h degree o f pers o n a l i n s e c u r i t y . As noted i n Problem I, t h i s manifested i t s e l f i n B's r e s e t t i n g p e r s o n a l time p r i o r i t i e s to lower t h a t o f the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g r o l e d u r i n g the middle p e r i o d o f n e g o t i a t i o n s , i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n d i c a t o r s ; Problem I I meets a l l seven counterproductive response t e s t f a c t o r s ; F a c t o r Evidence 1 . We-they d i s t i n c t i o n A and the author d e f i n i t e l y h e l d a we-they d i s t i n c t i o n d uring the c o n f r o n t a t i o n over l a t e changes. 2 . Atmosphere o f t o t a l Invoking the chairman' s defea t o r v i c t o r y p r e r o g a t i v e to make a d e c i s i o n had the e f f e c t o f d e f e a t i n g A; a l s o the other team members B and C o f t e n a l i g n e d themselves a g a i n s t A. - 79 " F a c t o r (cont' d) 3. Own p o i n t o f view 4. Emphasis on a t t a i n i n g a s o l u t i o n 5. P e r s o n a l i z e d .—. — c o n f l i c t 6 . U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s 7. Immediate disagreement emphasized Evidence From the r e s t of the team;*s viewpoint, A's attendance was mandatory whereas A c o n t r a d i c t e d t h i s i n a c t i o n . S e v e r a l attempts were made to f i n d a s o l u t i o n w i t h the p a r t i a l s u b s t i t u t i o n o f D u l t i m a t e l y o c c u r r i n g . P e r s o n a l i z e d comments are noted. The absence o f A as a d i s c u s s i o n t o p i c o c c u r r e d throughout the b a r g a i n i n g team caucuses. When r a i s e d as an i s s u e with A, the t o p i c became c o n f l i c t u a l with excuses and defensive arguments being exchanged w i t h B, C and the author. - 80 -i i i . P r o p o s i t i o n Support; I. Lengthening o f time t o reach agreement More j o i n t s e s s i o n s were necessary as a r e s u l t o f A's absence*Therefore, t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s supported. IA. Increased Team Resource Inputs The major r a m i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC problem was the n e c e s s i t y to r e s t r u c t u r e and r e o r i e n t the team t o p a r t i a l l y i n c l u d e D. IA i s d e f i n i t e l y supported. I I . Withholding i n f o r m a t i o n and/or m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n Withdrawal o f A, f o r a p e r i o d reduced i n p u t , not only o f A but as noted, a l s o o f B. I I I . Rule bre a k i n g behavior The r u l e o f attendance was broken r e e s t a b l i s h e d with A and then broken again. IVA. Occurrence o f n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making Absence o f A d u r i n g the counterproposal p e r i o d f o r c e d the author t o make some a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerning C o u n c i l p o s i t i o n s . IVB. Reduced p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s e l l i n g agreement Nonsupport f o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s a l s o e v i d e n t . The absence of A d i d not appear t o reduce A's support - 8 1 _ f o r the f i n a l document. The p a r t i a l a d d i t i o n of D perhaps i n c r e a s e d the u l t i m a t e support f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n . C. Problem I I I - E x c l u s i o n o f F i r s t l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s from Union C e r t i f i c a t i o n i . D e s c r i p t i o n : T h i s problem centered around the p r e n e g o t i a t i o n i s s u e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a team p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n C o l l e g e questioned s u p e r v i s o r y i n c l u s i o n s i n the union's c e r t i f i e d b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . The team members h e l d a thorough review o f the a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e . I t became apparent d u r i n g the review t h a t the members h e l d v a r y i n g views on the i s s u e . F u r t h e r , they appeared to d e f e r to C who had the g r e a t e s t stake i n the i s s u e as C was the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of s e v e r a l o f the questioned p o s i t i o n s . As problem s o l v i n g d i d not appear to r e s o l v e the matter, the author persuaded C to s e l e c t a p a r t i c u l a r a l t e r n a t i v e based upon "expert" knowledge as to the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f success o f the o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s . While i t a t f i r s t appeared t h a t persuasion had r e s o l v e d the i s s u e , two weeks l a t e r C again balked by r e f u s i n g to support the a l t e r n a t i v e . As noted i n Problem I, C then exacted a t r a d e - o f f p r i c e from A before f i n a l l y conceding the p o s i t i o n . C's b a l k i n g had a f o u r hour d e l a y i n g e f f e c t on the team - 8 2 -caucus determination o f o t h e r b u s i n e s s . F u r t h e r , i t r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l resources through A's r e f e r r a l o f C's demand to D. There was a degree of b e t r a y a l f e e l i n g s experienced by the author and some pers o n a l animosity and anger d i r e c t l y expressed towards C. C responded by e x p l a i n i n g the t i g h t c o n t r o l s i t u a t i o n and that t h i s was a way o f c o u n t e r a t t a c k i n g C o u n c i l . The problem occu r r e d d u r i n g the f i r s t month o r two o f team a s s o c i a t i o n and d i d not appear to have a long l a s t i n g e f f e c t on e i t h e r the author o r C's subsequent behaviors towards each o t h e r . i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC I n d i c a t o r s ; Problem I I I presents?evidence i n support of the seven F i l l e y (1975) win-lose, l o s e - l o s e f a c t o r s . . In a s s e s s i n g these indices,however, they appear to be they are l e s s s t r o n g l y supported than with Problems I o r I I . F a c t o r Evidence 1. We-they d i s t i n c t i o n A we-they d i s t i n c t i o n arose as problem s o l v i n g attempts f a i l e d t o reach a compromise. T h i s occurred p a r t i c u l a r l y between C and the author. - 83 -F a c t o r (cont'd) Evidence 2. Atmosphere o f t o t a l d e f e a t o r v i c t o r y 3. Own p o i n t o f view 4. Emphasis on a t t a i n i n g a s o l u t i o n 5. P e r s o n a l i z e d c o n f l i c t 6. U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s As problem s o l v i n g f a i l e d the author found h i m s e l f r e a c h i n g f o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e i n f o r m a t i o n (which C c o u l d not re f u t e ) i n order t o persuade C. T h i s a c t i o n i s viewed as an attempt t o d e f e a t C. C l e a r l y C and the author saw the e x c l u s i o n i s s u e d i f f e r e n t l y , each o p e r a t i n g from h i s own p o i n t o f view. Eventual s o l u t i o n was a compromise sweetened by some promise o f budgetary support f o r C. C o n f l i c t between C and the author became somewhat p e r s o n a l i z e d w i t h r e s i d u a l emotional r e a c t i o n s . The c o n f l i c t appeared t o take precedent over a l l other i s s u e s u n t i l r e s o l v e d , i e . , f o u r hour d i s c u s s i o n . - 84 -F a c t o r ( c o n t'd) Evidence 7. Immediate disagreement For a b r i e f time, C and the emphasized author were d e f i n i t e l y v e r b a l l y i n disagreement on the i s s u e . i i i . P r o p o s i t i o n Support: I. Lengthening o f time to reach agreement The i n a b i l i t y o f the team to r e s o l v e t h i s problem delayed the commencement o f n e g o t i a t i o n s between the union and management. IA. Increased Team Resource Inputs A d d i t i o n a l resources were r e q u i r e d to r e s o l v e the i s s u e . D was consulted. A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the f e a s i b i l i t y o f o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s was a l s o gathered. I I . W i t hholding i n f o r m a t i o n and/or m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n There was a m i s l e a d i n g impression o f acceptance o f p a r t i c u l a r a l t e r n a t i v e by C d u r i n g the middle stage of t h i s problem. IVA. Occurrence o f n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making The use o f e x p e r t i s e power by the author achieved the i n i t i a l a l t e r n a t i v e which was subsequently balked at by C. - 85 -D. Problem IV - Competing Team Member Time Pressures i . ' D e s c r i p t i o n : T h i s problem focus i s upon the competing time p r e s s u r e s o f the b a r g a i n i n g team members. As r e p o r t e d i n Problem I and I I , A i n d i c a t e d competing time p r e s s u r e s were p a r t o f the reason f o r absences and withdrawal behavior. B and C a l s o r e p e a t e d l y r a i s e d competing demands, both p e r s o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , on t h e i r time as a problem. Observations o f t h e i r behavior i n c l u d e l a t e n e s s and absences from caucuses and an expressed u n w i l l i n g n e s s f o r union-management n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s to be h e l d more f r e q u e n t l y than once per week. The s u b j e c t o f frequency o f n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s was d e a l t with i n s e v e r a l caucuses w i t h a v a r i e t y o f s o l u t i o n s e x p l o r e d . One p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n adopted was to i n c r e a s e the author's research r o l e and to add c l e r i c a l h e lp f o r com p i l i n g labour r e l a t i o n s s t a t i s t i c s . Competing time p r e s s u r e s o f team members a l s o became a disagreement p e r s o n a l l y focused between the author and o t h e r team members. On one o c c a s i o n , the author was accused o f being e x c e s s i v e l y singleminded r e g a r d i n g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and i n s e n s i t i v e to the other time demands o f team members. These accusations were responded to by no lon g e r - 86-drawing a t t e n t i o n to the s u b j e c t , i . e . suppression behavior, on the author's p a r t . The time problem seemed to have a secondary b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t as the drawn out nature o f t h i s team experience made i t a t times d i f f i c u l t f o r members to remain h i g h l y motivated. Data from one caucus showed B and C to demonstrate and express boredom and be s e n s i t i v e to symptoms o f f a t i g u e . On another o c c a s i o n , very offhanded i l l - c o n s i d e r e d r e a c t i o n s to j o i n t s e s s i o n b a r g a i n i n g were expressed. The competing time problem remained w i t h the team to the end o f n e g o t i a t i o n s a t which time B was a c t u a l l y on v a c a t i o n . The f i n a l settlement was agreed upon by the author, B and D i n a long d i s t a n c e telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n , i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n d i c a t o r s ; The c r i t e r i a show t h a t d y s f u n c t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r s are present i n t h i s problem f o r most f a c t o r s . T h i s i s perhaps s u r p r i s i n g as, at f i r s t glance, competing time pressures are a f a i r l y normal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l circumstance. Competing time pressures appear more counterproductive when s t u d i e d i n the problem context than when viewed as separate absence and withdrawal be h a v i o r s . F a c t o r Evidence We-they d i s t i n c t i o n Atmosphere o f t o t a l d e f e a t o r v i c t o r y Own p o i n t o f view Emphasis on a t t a i n i n g a s o l u t i o n P e r s o n a l i z e d c o n f l i c t U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s When pressure f o r v a l u a b l e time was generated by the author i t q u i c k l y became ev i d e n t t h a t there was a we-they d i s t i n c t i o n between the p a r t i e s . The behavior of the author i n o v e r l o o d i n g b a r g a i n i n g team time demands was a s u c c e s s f u l attempt by B and C to d e f e a t the other p a r t y . C l e a r l y the i s s u e was seen from each person's own p o i n t o f view. S o l u t i o n s r a i s e d were to add resources o r ignore the problem. The author was a t t a c k e d i n r e l a t i o n to accusations o f being an i n s e n s i t i v e , s e l f - c e n t e r e d person f o r pursuing the i s s u e . The time pressure problem was c o n t i n u a l l y intermixed FactorCcont'd) Evidence with o t h e r team behaviors. 7. Immediate disagreement When the problem was emphasized focused upon„B and C were immediately d e f e n s i v e , t a k i n g pains t o j u s t i f y the high p r i o r i t i e s o f o t h e r demands upon t h e i r time. i i i . P r o p o s i t i o n Support; I. Lengthening o f time t o reach agreement T h i s problem d e f i n i t e l y extended c o n s i d e r a b l y the time necessary to reach agreement. IA. Increased Team Resource Inputs As a d d i t i o n a l resources and i n c r e a s e d time by the author were needed t o achieve a p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n , t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s d e f i n i t e l y supported I I . Withholding i n f o r m a t i o n and/or m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n By d e f i n i t i o n t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s supported. I t i s a l s o suggested t h a t m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was presented i n support o f o t h e r h i g h p r i o r i t i e s , I I I . Rule breaking behavior Rules o f attendance and de a d l i n e s r e g a r d i n g attendance were broken. IVA. Occurrence o f n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making O c c a s i o n a l l y , d e c i s i o n s were made by the author on - 99- -b e h a l f o f the team w i t h reduced o r no o t h e r team member i n p u t . E . Problem V - Disagreement Over C o l l e c t i v e Agreement Content Issues i . D e s c r i p t i o n : Goal and content i s s u e s are normally a n t i c i p a t e d to be a major source o f IOC. Perhaps because o f the team's i n i t i a l mutual determination and agreement o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g goals, there were only a few items o f t h i s nature t h a t generated prolonged d i s c u s s i o n and debate. A major i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d as the counterproposals were i n the f i n a l stage o f p r e p a r a t i o n . Concerns about the apparent g e n e r o s i t y o f the package were raised, by A, B and C. A was o v e r r u l e d on some proposed changes and a somewhat heated, p e r s o n a l l y focused exchange oc c u r r e d between A and the author. I t was i m p l i e d t h a t A was c h a l l e n g i n g the author's knowledge of labour r e l a t i o n s . A became i n s e c u r e , more h e s i t a t n t and withdrawn. Content d i s p u t e s by extending caucuses, w i t h i n the team, a l s o delayed the progress o f j o i n t n e g o t i a t i o n s on a few o c c a s i o n s . The data i n d i c a t e t h a t v a r i o u s team members expressed r e l u c t a n c e to become s p e c i f i c over counterproposals. B, i n p a r t i c u l a r , e x p r e s s e d a "wait and see" approach, -90- -e x p r e s s l y w i t h h o l d i n g a d e c i s i o n to agree wi t h the counterproposals step by step, u n t i l the author generated a t o t a l package o f d r a f t counterproposals, i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n d i c a t o r s : A p p l y i n g the seven w i n - l o s e , l o s e - l o s e f a c t o r s to t h i s problem supports i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC: F a c t o r 1 . We-they d i s t i n c t i o n 2 . Atmosphere o f t o t a l defeat o r v i c t o r y 3. Own p o i n t o f view Evidence There was a we-they d i s t i n c t i o n between a l l members r e l a t e d to some content i s s u e s . When content i s s u e s were being debated, A's i n p u t was o f t e n ignored as being not knowledgeable as to the C o l l e g e ' s o p e r a t i n g methods. B and C saw these d i s p u t e d content i s s u e s from the focus o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , eg. f e a s i b i l i t y to work w i t h i n proposed agreement whereas A saw these same i s s u e s from a C o u n c i l view-p o i n t , eg. c o s t c o n s t r a i n t s . -91 -F a c t o r (cont'd) 4. Emphasis on a t t a i n i n g a s o l u t i o n 5 . P e r s o n a l i z e d c o n f l i c t 6. U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s 7. Immediate disagreement emphasized • Evidence The s o l u t i o n u s u a l l y a p p l i e d to such content d i s p u t e s was a vote whereby A was normally o v e r r u l e d . The interchange between A and the author was d e f i n i t e l y p e r s o n a l i z e d , although many o f the other content d i s c u s s i o n s were not. T h i s c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n process was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . During the d i s c u s s i o n o f the content i s s u e s / t h e team members h e l d to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r views thus, i n t h i s sense, they were outcome focused. The d i s c u s s i o n between A and the author r e f e r r e d to above was d e f i n i t e l y o r i e n t e d to a win-lose s t y l e o f r e s o l u t i o n . - 92 -i i i . . P r o p o s i t i o n Support: I. Lengthening o f time t o reach agreement Delays i n j o i n t b a r g a i n i n g o c c u r r e d . IA. Increased Team Resource Inputs Increased and lengthened team meeting p e r i o d s were needed to r e s o l v e content i s s u e s . I I . Withholding i n f o r m a t i o n and/or m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n I n s o f a r as the exchange between A and the author c o n t r i b u t e d to the withdrawal o f A, input was reduced. Evidence o f i n c r e a s e d i n p u t i s a l s o noted i n regard t o content i s s u e s . As content i s s u e s r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n / i n p u t o f team members was in c r e a s e d . T h i s a d d i t i o n a l input took the form o f a member o f f e r i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence s u p p o r t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t of view i n regard to the content i s s u e under d i s c u s s i o n . IVA. Occurrence o f n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making Content i s s u e s r e q u i r e d i n f r e q u e n t a u t o c r a t i c d e c i s i o n making. An a d d i t i o n a l problem was i s o l a t e d from the data. I t s occurrence/however/is viewed as so a t y p i c a l t h a t i t has been omitted from the a n a l y s i s . The problem was the r e s i g n a t i o n o f C from the team which prompted some c o n f l i c t u a l i n c i d e n t s that were r e s o l v e d by the remaining members. C subsequently r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g - 9 3 -some l a s t i n g resentment towards o t h e r team members over the treatment r e c e i v e d upon r e s i g n a t i o n . F. A d d i t i o n a l F i n d i n g s i . D e c i s i o n S t y l e In Chapter Two, P a r t Two, Vroom and Yetton's (1973) normative model o f s i t u a t i o n a l l y determined d e c i s i o n s t y l e s was d i s c u s s e d i n regard to p r e s c r i b i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e d e c i s i o n s t y l e f o r use when c o n f l i c t i s p r e s e n t w i t h i n a group. P e r c e p t i o n s o f the members re g a r d i n g the frequency o f v a r i o u s d e c i s i o n s t y l e s suggested by Vroom and Yetton (1973) was thought to be a measure o f the i n f l u e n c e o f IOC on s e l e c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n mode. To gather these p e r c e p t i o n s , a q u e s t i o n n a i r e based upon the Vroom and Yetton d e c i s i o n s t y l e d e s c r i p t i o n s (19 73, p. 13) was administered to team members B and C twice, at the midpoint o f the b a r g a i n i n g experience and a t the end. Team member A's continuous absence prevented more complete data c o l l e c t i o n . Table I reproduces the d e c i s i o n s t y l e d e s c r i p t i o n s i n column 1, the midpoint responses o f team members B and C i n columns 2 and 3, and the f i n a l responses i n columns 4 and 5. F i g u r e s shown represent p e r c e i v e d percentages o f team d e c i s i o n s made acco r d i n g to the r e s p e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e . ******************* I n s e r t Table I ******************* -94 -TABLE I Member Assessment o f Decision' Making S t y l e Percentage o f D e c i s i o n s • Made by Various S t y l e s D e s c r i p t i o n o f Decision' S t y l e Midpoint E v a l u a t i o n F i n a l ! E v a l u a t i o n 1. Leader s o l v e s Member 1 Member 2 0% 0% Member 1 Member 2 10% 10% problem o r makes d e c i s i o n h i m s e l f u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to le a d e r at the time. 2. Leader o b t a i n s 10% 0% 0% 5% the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n from b a r g a i n i n g team, then decides the s o l u t i o n to problem h i m s e l f . Leader may o r may not t e l l b a r g a i n i n g team what the problem i s i n g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from them. The r o l e played by the ot h e r b a r g a i n i n g team members i n making the d e c i s i o n i s c l e a r l y one o f p r o v i d i n g the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n to lead e r , r a t h e r than generating o r e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . T A B L E I ( c o n t . ) D e s c r i p t i o n o f M i d p o i n t D e c i s i o n S t y l e E v a l u a t i o n Member 1 Member 2 3. L e a d e r s h a r e s 5% 5% t h e p r o b l e m w i t h t h e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m i n d i v i d u a l l y g e t t i n g t h e i r i d e a s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s w i t h o u t b r i n g i n g them t o g e t h e r a s a g r o u p . T h e n l e a d e r makes t h e d e c i s i o n , w h i c h may o r may n o t r e f l e c t b a r g a i n i n g t e a m ' s i n f l u e n c e . 4 . L e a d e r s h a r e s t h e 0% 0% 0% 4% p r o b l e m w i t h b a r g a i n i n g t e a m as a g r o u p , o b t a i n i n g c o l l e c t i v e i d e a s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s . T h e n l e a d e r makes t h e d e c i s i o n , w h i c h may o r may n o t r e f l e c t b a r g a i n i n g t e a m ' s i n f l u e n c e . 5 . L e a d e r s h a r e s t h e 85% 95% 75% 80% p r o b l e m w i t h b a r g a i n i n g t e a m a s a g r o u p . T o g e t h e r t h e team g e n e r a t e s a n d e v a l u a t e s a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d a t t e m p t s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t ( c o n s e n s u s ) on a s o l u t i o n . L e a d e r s r o l e i s much l i k e a c h a i r m a n . L e a d e r d o e s n o t t r y t o i n f l u e n c e t h e g r o u p t o a d o p t " l e a d e r " s o l u t i o n , a n d l e a d e r i s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t a n d i m p l e m e n t any s o l u t i o n w h i c h h a s t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e e n t i r e g r o u p . F i n a l E v a l u a t i o n  Member 1 Member 2 0% 1% - 96 -I t appears from these data that the two team members responding c o n s i s t e n t l y viewed the o v e r a l l d e c i s i o n making s t y l e of the b a r g a i n i n g team as p a r t i c i p a t i v e . Thus, while the f i v e d y s f u n c t i o n a l problems i n d i c a t e d support f o r P r o p o s i t i o n IVA, occurrence of a n o n p a r t i c i -p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e , there were not enough of these d e c i s i o n s t o produce an e f f e c t as suggested by P r o p o s i -t i o n s IVB, reduced p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s e l l i n g agreement, or IVC, IOC a f f e c t i n g recommendations, i i . F u n c t i o n a l IOC: Another o b s e r v a t i o n on IOC gained from the a n a l y s i s i s t h a t a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the behaviors c l a s s i f i e d as p e r c e i v e d incompatible b e h a v i o r s , t h a t i s c o n f l i c t , were not d y s f u n c t i o n a l . Most of the c o n f l i c t observed r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n t viewpoints w i t h i n the team on content i s s u e s . Examples o f f u n c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t were found i n a l l o f the team caucuses d i s c u s s i n g the r e l a t i v e pros and cons of a union demand or management counterproposal. As incompatible viewpoints were expressed these interchanges, when t e s t e d by the f i v e item (Filley,1973) d e f i n i t i o n , were c h a r a c t e r i z e d as c o n f l i c t u a l y e t h i g h l y f u n c t i o n a l . As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , o n l y a few of these i s s u e s became d y s f u n c t i o n a l . D i s c r i m i n a t i n g f e a t u r e s of d y s f u n c t i o n a l versus f u n c t i o n a l IOC ,as shown by comparing these behaviors , - 97 -a p p e a r s t o b e t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e r e q u i r e d t o r e s o l v e them a n d t h e p e r m a n e n c e o f t h e s o l u t i o n a c h i e v e d . F u n c t i o n a l IOC i s q u i c k l y a n d p e r m a n e n t l y r e s o l v e d . D y s f u n c t i o n a l I O C , w h i c h i s r e c u r r i n g , c o n s u m e s c o n s i d e r a b l e b a r g a i n i n g team t i m e a n d e n e r g y . 5 . Summary T a b l e I I r e p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s C h a p t e r . **************** I n s e r t T a b l e I I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - 98 -Table I I - Summary' o f P r o p o s i t i o n F i n d i n g s ' Problems ' P r o p o s i t i o n s C o u n c i l C r i t i c -ism E f f e c t I I Team Member With-drawal I I I E x c l -u s i o n from Union C e r t i -f i c a t i o n IV Com-p e t i n g Time Pressures V Con-t e n t Issue D i s -agree-ments I. Lengthening o f time to reach agreement IA.Increased Team Resource Inputs I I . W i t h h o l d i n g Information and/or mis-l e a d i n g i n f o . I I I . Rule b r e a k i n g Behavior IV.A.Occurrence of n o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n D e c i s i o n Making S IV.B.Reduced P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n S e l l i n g Agree-} ment IV.C.Recommendatioii to r e j e c t o r no recommend a t i o n S/R Key - S - P r o p o s i t i o n Supported R - P r o p o s i t i o n Refuted by Data Blank - No evidence observed - 99 -A n a l y s i s o f data presents strong support f o r IOC b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d with time delays and in c r e a s e d team resources. Reduction of v a l u a b l e and needed inputs through the w i t h h o l d i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n and the p o t e n t i a l f o r m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to be presented i s a l s o found i n f o u r of the f i v e d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC problems observed. D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , appears to f o s t e r n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s i n a l l problems. The data t h e r e f o r e supports p r o p o s i t i o n IVA. The p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f r u l e b r e a k i n g behavior are l e s s s t r o n g l y supported. F i n d i n g s e q u a l l y support and r e j e c t the e f f e c t of n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n making s t y l e on team member p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A l s o , as the team recommended acceptance, t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s r e j e c t e d . The supplementary i n f o r m a t i o n presented i n Table I suggests, a c c o r d i n g to two members ' pe r c e p t i o n s , most d e c i s i o n s were made i n a p a r t i c i p a t i v e mode. Th i s i n f o r m a t i o n may e x p l a i n the lack of support found i n the a n a l y s i s r e g a r d i n g P r o p o s i t i o n IVB, reduced p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f team members i n s e l l i n g a memorandum of agreement to p r i n c i p a l s , and P r o p o s i t i o n IVC, team members recommend r e j e c t i o n o r make no recommendation to t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . Conclusions r e l a t e d to the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s and i n d i c a t o r s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, the p r o p o s i t i o n s , and suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h are the s u b j e c t s o f Chapter F i v e . _ 1 0 0 -CHAPTER F I V E - C o n c l u s i o n s F r o m t h e e x p e r i e n c e s g a i n e d i n f i e l d s t u d y o f an a c t u a l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m , o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r , i t i s now p o s s i b l e t o make some c o n c l u s i o n s i n r e g a r d t o b o t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l m o d e l o f IOC b e h a v i o r a n d t o d i s c u s s t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o p o s e d o u t c o m e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s s u g g e s t i n g f u r t h e r a r e a s f o r r e s e a r c h o n t h e t o p i c o f b a r g a i n i n g t e a m IOC a r e a l s o d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 1 . A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e T h e o r e t i c a l M o d e l F i g u r e O n e , p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r T w o , t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e s c r i b e d t h e n a t u r e o f IOC o c c u r r i n g i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m . T h e f i e l d s t u d y d a t a o f C h a p t e r F o u r p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e m o d e l . IOC b e h a v i o r s w e r e f o u n d t o be a b u n d a n t l y p r e s e n t . E v i d e n c e was f o u n d o f IOC b e h a v i o r s i n t e a m c a u c u s e s , i n p r i v a t e m e e t i n g s b e t w e e n some members o f t h e t e a m , a n d i n t h e j o i n t n e g o t i a t i n g s e s s i o n s . IOC t r e a t m e n t p r o c e s s e s , t h a t i s r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r s , were a l s o f o u n d . R e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r s were o b s e r v e d o f b o t h t h e p r o d u c t i v e a n d c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e t y p e s . F o r e x a m p l e , s e v e r a l a t t e m p t s a t p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g i n d i c a t e d t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f w i n - w i n o r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s . S i m i l a r l y , p e r s o n a l i z e d a t t e m p t s - 101 -to defeat another team member and n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e s , as evidenced i n the f i v e problems presented i n Chapter Four, i n d i c a t e d the occurrence of win-lose and l o s e - l o s e , counterproductive responses. That d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behavior has an outcome e f f e c t on team behavior i s a l s o evident i n the v a r y i n g support found f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n s . The model c o n c e p t u a l i z e d IOC as a dynamic phenomenon, a flow o f behaviors, o p e r a t i n g throughout the team experience. Two p a r t i c u l a r causes of IOC through feedback w i t h i n the model were suggested: response behaviors and negative outcomes. The dynamic-c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of IOC i m p l i e s that o b s e r v a t i o n s of a team's behavior cannot concentrate j u s t on i n i t i a t i n g behaviors or j u s t on responses to determine p o t e n t i a l outcomes. I n i t i a t i n g behavior, IOC, alone may be counteracted by a v a r i e t y o f responses t h a t serve to n u l l i f y any e f f e c t s . Response behaviors alone do not guarantee a p a r t i c u l a r set o f outcomes. I t i s the r e a c t i o n of the i n i t i a t i n g member's behavior to a response t h a t determines whether or not IOC i s r e s o l v e d or becomes a generator o f subsequent IOC behavior. Thus ob s e r v a t i o n of b a r g a i n i n g team IOC must focus upon the i n t e r p l a y between i n i t i a t i n g and response behaviors flowing - 102 t h r o u g h o u t t h e b a r g a i n i n g team e x p e r i e n c e . T h e s e c o m b i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n s w i l l d e t e r m i n e o u t c o m e s o f I O C . I n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i e l d s t u d y , s e l e c t i o n o f f o c a l p r o b l e m s a p p e a r e d t o c l a r i f y c o m b i n a t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r s t h a t l e d t o v a r i o u s o u t c o m e s . C o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e t e a m members s u p p o r t e d t h e f o c a l p r o b l e m a p p r o a c h a s i t was o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e y a l s o t e n d e d t o p e r c e p t u a l l y f o c u s o r d w e l l o n c e r t a i n i s s u e s o r p r o b l e m s . O b s e r v a t i o n o f IOC p r o b l e m s i n t h e f i e l d s t u d y a p p e a r s t o s u p p o r t t h e r e c y c l i n g c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f b o t h r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r s a n d n e g a t i v e o u t c o m e s i n t h e m o d e l . F o r e x a m p l e , w i n - l o s e t r e a t m e n t o f team member A ' s l a t e i n p u t o f c o u n t e r p r o p o s a l c h a n g e s n o t e d i n P r o b l e m I I g e n e r a t e d f u r t h e r w i t h d r a w a l f r o m t h e t e a m o f A . A n e x a m p l e o f a n e g a t i v e o u t c o m e a s a c o n f l i c t g e n e r a t o r was t h a t t h e e x t e n t i o n o f t i m e t o c o m p l e t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e l o w m o t i v a t e d , r e d u c e d i n p u t r e s p o n s e s o f t e a m member B r e c o r d e d i n P r o b l e m I V . W i t h i n an IOC p r o b l e m t h e r e may e x i s t a v a r i e t y o f IOC b e h a v i o r s , c l a s s i f i e d a s f u n c t i o n a l o r d y s f u n c t i o n a l a c c o r d i n g t o e l i c i t e d r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n P r o b l e m I I I , t h e i n i t i a l c o m p r o m i s e a t t a i n e d t h r o u g h p r o b l e m s o l v i n g ( w i n - w i n ) d e f i n e s t h e s e IOC b e h a v i o r s as f u n c t i o n a l . Y e t o v e r a l l , P r o b l e m I I I r e t a i n e d t h e - 103 -c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t . The o c c u r r e n c e o f b o t h f u n c t i o n a l a n d d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC b e h a v i o r s b y t h e same a c t o r w i t h i n p r o b l e m I I I s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c e p t o f v a r y i n g team member t o l e r a n c e l e v e l s t o I O C . T h e e v i d e n c e o f P r o b l e m I I I a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t t o l e r a n c e l e v e l s may b e i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r i n r e s o l v i n g I O C . I f t h e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y ( w i n - w i n r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r ) h a d t r u l y r e s o l v e d t h e I O C , t h e n t h e p r e d o m i n a n t IOC b e h a v i o r w o u l d h a v e b e e n f u n c t i o n a l a n d n o t a c a s e f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . A s t h e p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a t t e m p t f a i l e d h o w e v e r , IOC b e h a v i o r c o n t i n u e d a n d became i n c r e a s i n g l y d y s f u n c t i o n a l as w i n - l o s e a n d l o s e - l o s e r e s p o n s e s were t h e n e l i c i t e d . T h e f o r e g o i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t t o l e r a n c e l e v e l s t o IOC a r e l o w e r e d a s p a r t i c u l a r IOC p r o b l e m s c o n t i n u e t o o c c u r . A l s o , i t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e more team member e n e r g y t h a t i s c o n s u m e d i n u n s u c c e s s f u l l y a t t e m p t i n g t o r e s o l v e I O C , t h e l o w e r t h e t o l e r a n c e l e v e l b e c o m e s . T i m e a n d e n e r g y a r e t h e r e f o r e v i e w e d a s i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i n g i n f l u e n c e s t o d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n t h i s p r o b l e m . The c o r o l l a r y t o e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o r e s o l v e IOC i s t h e i n c r e a s e d amount o f IOC b e h a v i o r t h a t a l s o o c c u r s i n P r o b l e m I I I . T h u s t h e c o n c e p t s u g g e s t i n g - 104 -v a r i a t i o n o f IOC l e v e l s i n a b a r g a i n i n g t e a m e x p e r i e n c e i s a l s o s u p p o r t e d . W h i l e P r o b l e m I I I shows s u p p o r t f o r t h e t o l e r a n c e l e v e l a n d I O C l e v e l c o n c e p t s , i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p r e v e n t a g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n b e i n g d r a w n o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s . T h i s i n i t i a l s u p p o r t i s i n t e r e s t i n g , h o w e v e r , a s a p o i n t f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o n t h e c o n c e p t s . 2 . U t i l i t y o f O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n s i . IOC B e h a v i o r 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 I O C , t a k e n f r o m F i l l e y ' s (1975) p r o c e s s d e f i n i t i o n o f c o n f l i c t , p r e s e n t e d f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c o n f l i c t u a l s i t u a t i o n . I t was f o u n d when c a r r y i n g o u t a n a l y s i s t h a t o n l y two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d IOC f r o m o t h e r b e h a v i o r s i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m . T h e s e a r e : 1 . T h e p a r t i e s f a c e e a c h o t h e r w i t h m u t u a l l y o p p o s i n g a c t i o n s a n d c o u n t e r a c t i o n s . 2 . E a c h p a r t y a t t e m p t s t o c r e a t e an i m b a l a n c e o r r e l a t i v e l y f a v o u r e d p o s i t i o n o f p o w e r v i s - a - v i s t h e o t h e r ( F i l l e y , 1975 , p . 4 ) . T h e s e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e r e f o r e , b e c a m e t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e f i e l d s t u d y a s t o b e h a v i o r s a d j u d i c a t e d as i n c o m p a t i b l e , i . e . I O C . T h i s f i n d i n g d o e s n o t r e f u t e t h e p o t e n t i a l v a l u e o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c o n f l i c t u a l s i t u a t i o n ( F i l l e y , 1 9 7 5 ) . R a t h e r i t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e y - 105 -were e i t h e r a l w a y s p r e s e n t , as i n t h e c a s e o f " a t l e a s t two p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n some k i n d o f i n t e r a c t i o n ^ " o r o p e r a t i o n a l l y u s e l e s s , as i n t h e c a s e o f g o a l / v a l u e m e a s u r e m e n t a n d f o c u s o f b e h a v i o r t o d e f e a t " o r t o g a i n a m u t u a l l y d e s i g n a t e d v i c t o r y , " i n t h e c a s e s t u d y . S t a t e d s u c c i n c t l y , IOC b e h a v i o r i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team was f o u n d t o be m o s t r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d b y i n c o m p a t i b l e a c t s o f a g g r e s s i v e a n d e x t e n d e d d e b a t e , t h e e x e r c i s i n g o f p o w e r , s u p p r e s s i o n a n d w i t h d r a w a l , i i . D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC A s an o p e r a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h , C h a p t e r Two s u g g e s t e d t h e u s e o f F i l l e y ' s (1975) s e v e n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f w i n - l o s e a n d l o s e - l o s e b e h a v i o r as an i d e n t i f y i n g c h e c k -l i s t o f c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s . O b s e r v a t i o n s r e p o r t e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r a p p e a r t o s u p p o r t t h e u t i l i t y o f t h i s a p p r o a c h t o r e c o g n i z i n g p e r c e i v e d d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC b y team members . P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y t h e p r o b l e m o f a v o i d i n g a t a u t o l o g y b e t w e e n o p e r a t i o n a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC a n d t h e d e v e l o p e d p r o p o s i t i o n s i s b y no means an i n s i g n i f i c a n t o n e . S u c h a n o b s e r v a t i o n c l e a r l y a r g u e s f r o m a v e r y s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l I O C , t h u s s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h o i c e o f F i l l e y o v e r t h a t o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s , e g . D e u t s c h ( 1 9 7 3 ) , w h i c h t e n d e d t o c o n f u s e o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v i o r a n d o u t c o m e s . - 1 0 6 -The f o r e g o i n g , however, i s not meant to imply t h a t the s e l e c t e d approach to r e c o g n i z i n g d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC was f r e e o f o p e r a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y problems. Two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l a c k some o p e r a t i o n a l c l a r i t y . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i x , " l a c k o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t - r e s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s " , p r ovided some measurement d i f f i c u l t y . In any group process i t appears to be normal f o r members to focus upon p e r c e i v e d c o n f l i c t i n an attempt to r e s o l v e IOC. At th a t p o i n t i n time, an observer would gain the impression that there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h i s a c t i v i t y and "other group processes." The second phase of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , r e l a t i n g to lack of a "planned sequence of (IOC) r e s o l u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s " i s more c l e a r l y observable. C h a s c t e r i s t i c seven, "the p a r t i e s are c o n f l i c t - o r i e n t e d " , appears to be redundant as an i d e n t i f i e r p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h reference to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s one and three, i i i . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC Problems Perhaps as a n t i c i p a t e d by the d i s c u s s i o n of v a r y i n g t o l e r a n c e l e v e l s to IOC i n Chapter Two, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors was not, i n i s o l a t i o n , u s e f u l i n r e l a t i o n to the p r o p o s i t i o n s r a i s e d . In t h i s regard the long term nature o f the f i e l d study probably rescued the f i n d i n g s from the danger of d i s c o v e r i n g almost nc suppo r t i n g evidence. As noted i n Chapter Four, the cumulative l i n k a g e of IOC behaviors - 107 -m u s t be m a d e , i . e . , an IOC p r o b l e m i d e n t i f i e d , i n o r d e r t o g a i n a p i c t u r e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a n d e f f e c t s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i n a b a r g a i n i n g t e a m . W h i l e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r a r e b e l i e v e d t o be r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t e d d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m s , r e a d e r s w i l l be q u i c k t o n o t e an a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s t h a t e n t e r s i n t o t h e s e f i n d i n g s . A r e s e a r c h e r must assume some a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m a k i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d a t a l i n k a g e s t o d e v e l o p t h e more a b s t r a c t p r o b l e m f r o m o b s e r v e d IOC b e h a v i o r s . S e t t i n g t h e u n i t o f a n a l y s i s as a d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m a l s o somewhat w e a k e n s t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o p r o p o s e d o u t c o m e s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC b e h a v i o r o n a b a r g a i n i n g t e a m . A s i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r s i n c l u d e d i n a d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y v i e w e d i n i s o l a t i o n as d y s f u n c t i o n a l , t h e s u p p o r t f o u n d f o r p r o p o s i t i o n s i s c l e a r l y more c o n t r o v e r s i a l . I t r a i s e s t h e d i s t u r b i n g q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r IOC i n c i d e n t s i n a b a r g a i n i n g t e a m , e i t h e r o f a f u n c t i o n a l o r d y s f u n c t i o n a l n a t u r e , w i l l a l s o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s . - X08 -I t i s a l s o a p p a r e n t t h a t d i r e c t a n a l y s i s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l b a r g a i n i n g t e a m IOC w i l l n o t p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o o v e r a l l p e r c e i v e d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s t y l e s . I n f a c t , t h e l i m i t e d l i n k a g e s made b e t w e e n o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s t y l e w o u l d e q u a l l y s u p p o r t p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g P r o p o s i t i o n I V B . A d d i t i o n a l d a t a o n p e r c e i v e d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s t y l e / h o w e v e r ,was o b t a i n e d b y u s e o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s r e a f f i r m s t h e p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d a d v a n t a g e o f u s i n g more t h a n o n e d a t a g a t h e r i n g t e c h n i q u e i n t h e e x p l o r a t i v e f i e l d s t u d y , i v . W e i g h t i n g o f D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC P r o b l e m s I t was i n d i c a t e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC t h a t P r o b l e m I I , E x c l u s i o n f r o m U n i o n C e r t i f i c a t i o n I s s u e , d i d n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e t h e same c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as o t h e r p r o b l e m s . The s t r e n g t h o f s u p p o r t f o r t h e IOC i n d i c a t o r s w i t h i n the ' p r o b l e m was l e s s . A l s o , t h e r e a p p e a r e d t o be no l o n g l a s t i n g b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h P r o b l e m I I I . T h i s s u g g e s t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t IOC b e h a v i o r i s i s s u e r e l a t e d . A more r e f i n e d t e s t f o r c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s may p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t on b a r g a i n i n g t e a m I O C . F o r e x a m p l e , i f a w e i g h t e d s c a l e o f a c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t o r s was d e v e l o p e d , t h e n p r o b l e m s - 109 ~ c o u l d be r a n k e d on s e v e r i t y o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l i t y . F r o m t h i s r a n k i n g t h e r e may be e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o t h e i m p a c t o f v a r i o u s l y r a n k e d p r o b l e m s o n o u t c o m e s . T h e v a r i a t i o n i n i m p a c t , b a s e d upon f i e l d s t u d y d a t a , i s t h o u g h t t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e amount o f t i m e a d y s f u n c t i o n a l p r o b l e m e x i s t s a n d t h e t e a m member e n e r g i e s i t c o n s u m e s . A t t h i s j u n c t u r e , h o w e v e r , t h e o n l y c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h c a n be made i s t h a t t h e r e a r e o b s e r v a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i m p a c t o f v a r i o u s d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m s o n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s . 3. C o n c l u s i o n s R e l a t e d t o P r o p o s i t i o n s T h e l a s t s e c t i o n o f C h a p t e r F o u r p r e s e n t e d a summary o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s t h e s e f i n d i n g s i n more d e t a i l . I - The o c c u r r e n c e o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC d u r i n g t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s r e s u l t s i n a l e n g t h e n i n g o f t h e t i m e t a k e n t o c o n c l u d e a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t . P r o p o s i t i o n I i s s u p p o r t e d b y a l l f i v e d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m s . P a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e d a r e o u t c o m e s t h a t d e l a y e d t h e commencement o f j o i n t u n i o n -management n e g o t i a t i o n s a n d an e x t e n d e d number o f - n o -s e s s i o n s . IA - Where t i m e - l i m i t s prevent e x t e n t i o n o f the n e g o t i a t i n g process an outcome of d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC i s an i n c r e a s e i n team resource i n p u t s ; . . . P r o p o s i t i o n IA i s a l s o supported by a l l f i v e problems. Evidence has been presented showing an in c r e a s e i n caucus time. A l s o presented was evidence o f a d d i t i o n a l resource i n p u t s through the p a r t i a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the team to i n c l u d e D, and a d d i t i o n a l c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . I I - D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n team member behavior t h a t e i t h e r withholds i n f o r m a t i o n and/or presents i n f o r m a t i o n i n such a manner as to mislead other team members. While P r o p o s i t i o n I I i s supported by b e h a v i o r a l evidence i n fo u r problems, the support f o r w i t h h o l d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n appears stronger than f o r p r e s e n t i n g mis-l e a d i n g information., I t i s a l s o noted t h a t evidence showing nonsupport f o r P r o p o s i t i o n I I i s recorded f o r Problem V, content i s s u e s . Increased i n p u t was observed as the b e h a v i o r a l outcome. These c o n t r a d i c t o r y observations may be ex p l a i n e d by the exis t e n c e o f f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors, _ 1 1 1 -w i t h i n a d y s f u n c t i o n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d IOC problem. That i s , i n c r e a s e d input r e f l e c t e d a f u n c t i o n a l aspect of d i s c u s s i o n s on content i s s u e s . In the f i e l d study most of the IOC observed t h a t was focused on content i s s u e s d i d not demonstrate counterproductive response i n d i c a t o r s , i . e . i t was c l a s s i f i e d as f u n c t i o n a l IOC. I l l - D y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC may r e s u l t i n the breakdown o f p r e v i o u s l y agreed upon team r u l e s . There i s l i m i t e d support f o r P r o p o s i t i o n I I I as evidence was found of r u l i n g breaking behavior i n three problems. The nature of r u l e breaking behavior was d i f f e r e n t from that o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d . In the f i e l d study, time commitments and attendance deadlines were broken w i t h i n the team's agreed upon o p e r a t i n g methods. Rule breaking behavior does not seem as s i g n i f i c a n t as o r i g i n a l l y e n v i s i o n e d . The p a r t i c u l a r outcomes may be due to an absence o f r e s t r i c t i v e r u l e s r e g a r d i n g speaking at the t a b l e f o r C and the author p a r t i c u l a r l y , as the spokesman/negotiator r o l e was shared. IVA - When a b a r g a i n i n g team d e c i s i o n on the new or r e v i s e d c o l l e c t i v e agreement item i s made i n response t o d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors, the - "112 d e c i s i o n w i l l be made i n a n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e . E v i d e n c e f r o m t h e c a s e a n a l y s i s s u p p o r t s t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . A l l p r o b l e m s showed t h a t d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b y t h e a u t h o r was f o r c e d t o b e more a u t o c r a t i c when d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r e v a i l e d . E x p e r t p o w e r , c o m p r o m i s e s a n d a v o t i n g m e c h a n i s m w e r e u s e d t o make d e c i s i o n s i n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . IVB - When t e a m d e c i s i o n s as t o new o r r e v i s e d c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t i t e m s a r e made i n a n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e manner t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t w i l l be t o r e d u c e t h e a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t e a m members i n p e r s u a d i n g p r i n c i p a l s t o r a t i f y t h e memorandum o f a g r e e m e n t . F i e l d s t u d y d a t a h a s shown two o p p o s i n g b e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . The l o s s o f t e a m member C i s v i e w e d as s u p p o r t o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n w h e r e a s t h e c o n t i n u e d s u p p o r t o f t e a m member A o p p o s e d i t . M o r e s i g n i f i c a n t , h o w e v e r , t h a n t h e d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y d a t a o f T a b l e I i n d i c a t i n g t e a m members p e r c e i v e d b e t w e e n 80% a n d 9 5% o f b a r g a i n i n g team d e c i s i o n s w e r e made i n a p a r t i c i p a t i v e s t y l e . The s u p p l e m e n t a r y d a t a s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n - 1 1 3 -t h a t t h e f i v e o b s e r v e d p r o b l e m s o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC d i d n o t p r o d u c t s u f f i c i e n t n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b e h a v i o r t o r e d u c e t e a m member w i l l i n g n e s s t o s e l l r a t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e memorandum o f a g r e e m e n t . S p e c u l a t i o n as t o a c a u s e f o r t h i s s u g g e s t t h a t l e a d e r a w a r e n e s s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t e n d e d t o p r o d u c e an a v o i d a n c e o f t h i s s t y l e e x c e p t w h e r e IOC f o r c e d i t s u s e . A s t h e amount o r i n t e n s i t y o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o n e c e s s i t a t e g r e a t e r u s e o f a n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t y l e / P r o p o s i t i o n IVB c o u l d n o t b e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . I V C - T h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s v i s - a - v i s n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s , as t h i s b a l a n c e i s i n f l u e n c e d b y d y s f u n c t i o n a l I O C , may be t o i n f l u e n c e t h e o v e r a l l d e c i s i o n o f t h e team r e g a r d i n g i t s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s ; . . . As t h e d e c i s i o n s t y l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s o f T a b l e I show a h i g h l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d t h e team d i d recommend a c c e p t a n c e t o i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s , t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d . T h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s / h o w e v e r , as t o w h e t h e r a g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC p r o b l e m s w o u l d g e n e r a t e - 114 -s u f f i c i e n t n o n p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n s w i t h i n the team to sti m u l a t e a " r e j e c t " or "no recommendation" d e c i s i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e reasons f o r such recommendations are viewed as q u i t e f e a s i b l e i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g circumstance. For example, a content i s s u e may be so c e n t r a l to a team's goal t h a t i n and of i t s e l f i t i n f l u e n c e s the recommendation o f the team reg a r d i n g r a t i f i c a t i o n . P r o p o s i t i o n IVC i s not intended to r e f u t e such occurrences. Rather , i t suggests a p a r t i c u l a r l i n k a g e between d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC, d e c i s i o n making s t y l e and a proposed outcome. 3. Concluding Comments The research has attempted t o gain a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of c o n f l i c t i n i t s many manifest o r observable forms w i t h i n a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team. I t has produced, i t i s hoped, a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e o f what r e a l world b a r g a i n i n g team c o n f l i c t looks l i k e . The nature o f IOC has been b i s e c t e d by a f l e x i b l e p a r t i t i o n envisaged between f u n c t i o n a l and d y s f u n c t i o n a l IOC behaviors. On review, i t may be questioned as to whether t h i s p a r t i t i o n i s r e l e v a n t or u s e f u l . C l e a r l y some aspects of b a r g a i n i n g team IOC behaviors are pr o d u c t i v e . Yet, as noted p r e v i o u s l y , so too are some behaviors w i t h i n a d y s f u n c t i o n a l problem productive The d i v i d i n g l i n e appears to be one of time and team - 115 -e n e r g y u t i l i z e d i n t h e a t t e m p t s t o r e s o l v e I O C . U n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s t o r e s o l v e IOC g i v e r i s e t o c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e IOC r e s p o n s e b e h a v i o r . S u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n d o e s n o t . P e r h a p s a r e f o c u s i n g o f a t t e n t i o n i n t h e o p e r a t i o n a l m o d e l t o l o o k c l o s e r a t b o t h p r o d u c t i v e a n d c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e r e s p o n s e s t o u n r e s o l v e d b a r g a i n i n g team IOC w o u l d be u s e f u l . I n o t h e r w o r d s f u r t h e r s t u d y o f f r a m e 4A o f t h e c o n c e p t u a l m o d e l i n C h a p t e r Two i s s u g g e s t e d . S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s may p r o d u c e s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s o n I O C . T h e e f f e c t o f s i z e a n d v a r i o u s a s s i g n m e n t s o f f u n c t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s o f b a r g a i n i n g team m e m b e r s h i p a r e t h o u g h t t o b e p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s f o r p r o d u c t i v e r e s e a r c h o f a c o m p a r a t i v e n a t u r e . W h i l e t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h d e l i b e r a t e l y o m i t t e d an i n d e p t h s t u d y o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a u s e s o f t h e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m ' s I O C , u s e o f t h e f o c a l p r o b l e m a p p r o a c h i n a d v e r t e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d p e r c e i v e d c a u s e as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t e c h n i q u e . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team I O C , t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d e x p a n d s t u d y o f t h e c a u s e s o f I O C . C e r t a i n f a c t o r s may be more i m p o r t a n t as IOC g e n e r a t o r s t h a n o t h e r s . The f i e l d s t u d y s u p p o r t s t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y comments as t o a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g team p r o v i d i n g a r i c h - 116' -e n v i r o n m e n t f o r s t u d y i n g c o n f l i c t u a l b e h a v i o r . The d a t a i n d i c a t e d m o s t o f t h e b a r g a i n i n g t e a m i n t e r a c t i o n t o be somewhat c o n f l i c t u a l . W h e t h e r t h i s i s u n i q u e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s e s i s a q u e s t i o n l e f t t o c o m p a r a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s . The r e s u l t s s h o w , h o w e v e r , t h a t more g e n e r a l i z a b l e r e s e a r c h o n t h e e f f e c t s o f b a r g a i n i n g team IOC i s w a r r a n t e d . I f t h e d e v e l o p e d p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e a l s o s u p p o r t e d by r e s u l t s f r o m s t u d y o f s e v e r a l t e a m s , t h e r e w o u l d a p p e a r t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t p o t e n t i a l f o r c o s t r e d u c t i o n a n d i n c r e a s e d t e a m p e r f o r m a n c e i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . - 117 -REFERENCES Campbell, D. and S t a n l e y , J . i n N. Gage, Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. C h i l d , J . "Organization S t r u c t u r e and S t r a t e g i e s of C o n t r o l : A R e p l i c a t i o n o f the Aston Study", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 19 72, 17, 1963-177. : Cyert, R. & March, J . A B e h a v i o r a l Theory of the Firm, Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1963. Deutsch, M. The R e s o l u t i o n o f C o n f l i c t , New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. Druckman, D., " P r e n e g o t i a t i o n Experience and Dyadic C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n i n a B a r g a i n i n g S i t u a t i o n , " 196 8, as c i t e d i n Rubin, J . & Brown, B. The S o c i a l  Psychology of B a r g a i n i n g and N e g o t i a t i o n , New York: Academic Press, 1975. F i l l e y , A., I n t e r p e r s o n a l C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n , Glenview, I l l i n o i s : S c o t t , Foresman and Company, 1975. Kochan, T., Huber, G., & Cummings, L. "Determinants of 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 i n C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g i n the P u b l i c Sector", A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, V o l . 20, 10-23. Levinson, H., Determining Forces i n C o l l e c t i v e Wage  Bargaining, New York: J . Wiley, 1966. L o t t , B. "Group Cohesiveness:A Learning Phenomenon", 1961, a s - c i t e d i n S t e e r s , R. P o r t e r , L. (Ed.) 19 75, M o t i v a t i o n and Work Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 75. ; Mach, R. & Snyder, R. "The Analyses of S o c i a l C o n f l i c t , " Zowodney, J . Man and I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , V o l , , I C o n f l i c t , San F r a n c i s c o : Chandler, 1966. March, J. & Simon, H. O r g a n i z a t i o n s , New York: J. Wiley, 1958. " Maxwell, G. & Schmitt, D. as c i t e d i n Tedeschi, J . Schlenker, B., & Bonoma, T. C o n f l i c t , Power &  Games, Chicago: A l d i n e , 19 73. Nachmais, D. & Nachmais, C., Research Methods in' the  S o c i a 1 Sciences, New York"! St . Martin's Press7 1976. - 118 " P e t e r s o n , R. & T r a c y , L . " T e s t i n g a B e h a v i o r a l M o d e l o f L a b o r N e g o t i a t i o n s " , I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1 9 7 7 , V o l . 1 6 , #1, 3 5 - 5 0 . P h i l l i p s , B . S . S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , S t r a t e g y a n d T a c t i c s 3 r d e d i t i o n , New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 19 7 6 . P o n d y , L . " 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 c e p t s a n d M o d e l s , " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1967 , 1 2 , 2 9 6 - 3 2 0 . P o n d y , L . B e y o n d o p e n s y s t e m s m o d e l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e Academy o f M a n a g e m e n t , C h i c a g o , A u g u s t , 19 76 . R u b i n , J . & B r o w n , B . T h e S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y o f B a r g a i n i n g a n d N e g o t i a t i o n s , New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 . R u n k e l , P . & M c G r a t h , J . R e s e a r c h o n Human B e h a v i o r , New Y o r k : ( H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n ) , 19 72. S i e b e r , S . " T h e I n t e g r a t i o n o f F i e l d w o r k a n d S u r v e y M e t h o d s " , A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 19 7 3 , V o l . 78 , #6, 1 3 3 5 - 1 3 5 9 . S t e v e n s , C . S t r a t e g y a n d C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g  N e g o t i a t i o n s , New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 196 3 . T e d e s c h i , J . , S c h l e n k e r , B . & B o n o m a , T . C o n f l i c t ,  P o w e r a n d G a m e s , C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 19 73 . T h o m a s , K . & K i l m a n n , R . " T h e S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y V a r i a b l e i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : A n A l t e r n a t i v e E x p l a n a t i o n f o r R e p o r t e d F i n d i n g s , " Academy o f  Management J o u r n a l , 1977 , V o l . 1 8 , #4, 7 4 1 - 7 5 2 . V r o o m , R . & Y e t t o n , P . L e a d e r s h i p a n d D e c i s i o n M a k i n g , P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g P r e s s , 1973 . W a l t o n , R. & D u t t o n , J . " T h e Management o f I n t e r -p e r s o n a l C o n f l i c t : A M o d e l and R e v i e w , " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l v , 1 9 6 9 , V o l . 1 4 , 73-84. W a l t o n , R. & M c K e r s i e , R . , A B e h a v i o r a l T h e o r y o f L a b o u r N e g o t i a t i o n s , New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 9 6 5 . W e i c k , K . "Amendments t o O r g a n i z a t i o n a l T h e o r i z i n g " , Academy o f Management J o u r n a l , 1974 , V o l . 1 7 , 3 , 4 8 7 - 5 0 2 . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094230/manifest

Comment

Related Items