Four Perspectives on Conflict Management:An Attributional Framework for Organizing

Descriptive and Normative Theory^

RALPH H. KILMANNUniversity of Pittsburgh

KENNETH W. THOMASTemple University

Diverse explanatory conflict models and intervention strategies reflectkey perceptual/attributional choices. Two key choices are used as or-ganizing devices to identify four broad perspectives upon conflict: ex-ternal process, external structural, internal process, and internal struc-tural. Diagnostic concepts and intervention strategies from the litera-ture are summarized to illustrate each perspective.

Qbservers have commented upon the disor- definitions of "conflict", fundamentally differentganized state of organizational conflict literature sets of explanatory variables, and recommenda-(52, 78) and of conflict literature in general (30). tions of equally diverse strategies for managingThis disorganization shows itself in divergent conflict.

As a sample of this diversity, "conflict" hasRalph H. Kilmann (Ph.D. - University of California, Los An- been defined as the condition of objective in-geles) is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the compatibility between values Or goals (6), as theUniversity of Pittsburgh. behavior of deliberately interfering with anoth-

Kenneth W. Thomas (Ph.D. — Purdue University) is Associate : •:Professor of Industrial Relations and Organization Behavior ' This article is based upon a paper presented at the 34th An-in the School of Business Administration, Temple University. nual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August 18-21,

1974, in Seattle. The authors' names are in alphabetical orderReceived 6/25/76; Accepted 4/6/77, Revised T/5/77. to indicate the collaborative nature of this work.

59

«e four Perspectives on Conflict Management: An Attributional Framework

er's goal achievement (68), and emotionally interms of hostility (56). Descriptive theorists haveexplained conflict behavior in terms of objectiveconflict of interest (4), personal styles (10), reac-tions to threats (25), and cognitive distortions(57). Normative recommendations range overthe establishment of superordinate goals (71),consciousness raising (20), selection of compati-ble individuals (69), and mediating between con-flict parties (83).

This article attempts to organize the richnessand diversity of the organizational conflict litera-ture so as to be useful to scholars and practition-ers. Its approach is not to value one approachover another, explicitly or implicitly, but ratherto legitimize the value of different approachesby placing them in a larger perspective.

Rather than a new conflict model, somethingmore encompassing is needed — a meta modelof conflict management. One meta model identi-fies two key assumptive or attributional choiceswhich run through the diversity of existing mod-els. These assumptive choices are used as organ-izing principles to identify and differentiate fourbasic perspectives on conflict behavior. Thesefour perspectives are used as integrative mech-anisms to identify commonalities which cutacross the diversity in conflict definitions, inde-pendent variables, and interventions. Each per-spective is an equally important component ofconflict diagnosis and intervention, whetherconflict is between individuals, groups, or broad-er organizational subsystems.

The scope of this meta model can be clari-fied by examining the steps involved in managinga conflict. Conflict management is viewed ascontaining three major interrelated events: (a)perceiving/experiencing unacceptable conflict,(b) diagnosing the sources of the conflict, and(c) intervening. These events are similar to thesequence of conflict management and plannedchange activities discussed by Robbins (63) andLippitt et al. (44) and to the events or stages inthe conflict models suggested by Pondy (59) andThomas (78). Within the conflict managementcycle, this article is not directly concerned with

initial judgment of the acceptability or dysfunc-tionality of a given conflict — for example,whether there is an optimal level of conflict (63)or whether a given conflict-handling behavior isfunctional in a given situation (79). These com-plex functionality issues deserve further explica-tion elsewhere.

This article addresses the subsequent causalattributions (40) involved in diagnosing sourcesof the conflict and anticipating the leverage ofdifferent interventions. The four perspectivesdeveloped are applicable regardless of why agiven conflict has been judged as dysfunctional— whether one would prefer to escalate or de-escalate the conflict, to establish collaborationor heighten competition, etc. The specific inter-ventions cited from the literature are slanted to-wards de-escalation and collaboration only be-cause of the past emphasis within that literature(63).

It is important to distinguish between (a) theprocess through which a theorist or interven-tionist diagnoses a conflict and selects an inter-vention, and (b) the resulting diagnosis and in-tervention strategy. The four perspectives areconcerned with the diagnosis and interventionstrategy, not the process of arriving at it — whichis necessarily an internal mental process. Thusthe process of diagnosis should not be confusedwith the content of the internal process perspec-tive described later.

Two Key Attributional Choices

A review of the conflict literature suggestedthat much of its diversity could be accounted forin terms of two specific attributional distinctions.These two distinctions also seem to be importantattributional choices which theorists and prac-titioners make in trying to comprehend any be-havioral phenomena.

The First Distinction: Process vs. ^Structural Analyses

Process and structural analyses appear to befundamentally different methods of perceiving

Academy of Management Review - January 1978 61

and understanding phenomena. Thomas' (78)synthesis of dyadic conflict theory underscoredthe distinction, assembling much of that litera-ture into two separate process and structuralmodels of conflict behavior.

Process models of behavior place the partiesin a temporal sequence of events. Behavior is as-sumed to be directly influenced by precedingevents and anticipation of subsequent events.Structural models focus upon conditions, rela-tionships between those conditions, and theirinfluence upon behavior. At a given moment,those conditions are viewed as exerting forcesupon behavior. Whereas a process model placesparties in a sequence of events, a structural mod-el places them in a web of forces.

A series of verbal threats, acts of physical ag-gression, and an exchange of evaluative remarksare events. When these events, or a party's antic-ipation of them, are seen as influencing that par-ty's behavior, the behavior is being explained inprocess terms. Conflict of interest, norms, be-liefs, attitudes, and skills are conditions — thingswhich exist over a period of time. As such, theyare structural constructs for explaining behavior.

The Second Distinction: internal vs. ExternalSources of Influence

This distinction refers to two different locifor the origins of behavior. "Internal" modelsemphasize events and conditions within a partywhich influence behavior. Parties are seen as de-cision-making entities confronted with alterna-tives and choice points. Variation in behavior isassumed to be an outcome of differences in theprocesses and structures of this decision making.By contrast, "external" models focus upon eventsand conditions outside the party which shapebehavior. As Bugental (15) notes, the implicit as-sumption is that parties are fairly interchangea-ble in their reactions to processes and conditionsin their environment — that these processes andconditions are sufficient to explain behavior.Rotter (65) found systematic variation among in-dividuals in their tendencies to attribute behav-'or to internal or external causes. .

Assumptions, perceptions, motives, insights,decision-making styles, and anticipating the oth-er party's responses are phenomena which oc-cur within a party, and are therefore internalconstructs for explaining behavior. Examples ofexternal constructs are conflicts of interest,norms, an opponent's threats, an opponent'sconcessions, and third-party interventions.

The Four Perspectives

These two distinctions combine logically toidentify four perspectives upon conflict, as rep-resented in Figure 1: "external process", "exter-nal structural", "internal process", and "internalstructural". Although this scheme was developedindependently, it bears a strong resemblance tothe scheme used by Clark and Krone (18) toclassify their organization development inter-ventions.

Subsequent discussion of each perspectivewill focus on diagnosis and on intervention stra-tegies. But the four perspectives also help to ex-plain the divergence in definitions of "conflict"in the literature (30): as behavioral interference,threats, or competition (external process); asconflict of interest or objective role conflirt (ex-ternal structure); as experienced frustration orthe intent to injure or to interfere with an oppo-nent (internal process); or as personal incompat-ibilities and antagonistic attitudes or predisposi-tions (internal structure).

The External Process Perspective

This perspective emphasizes the causal ef-fects of events which impinge upon a party fromoutside. A party's behavior is seen as a reactionto the behavior of other parties, in "stimulus-re-sponse" fashion, and this behavior in turnevokes a behavioral response from them.

Diagnosis

Sources of conflictful behavior are soughtin other stimulus behaviors. More work needsto be done in classifying these behaviors and

62 Four Perspectives on Conflict Management: An Attributional Framework

Internal vs. External Sources of

Influence: Behavior is caused

by events and condit ions. . . .

outside the party(External)

inside the party(Internal)

Process vs. Structure: Behavior is caused by . . . .

events(Process)

The External Process Perspective— behavior is shaped by eventsoutside the individual:

threatsnegative evaluationencroachment

Intervention strategy:"Interaction management"

The Internal Process Perspective— behavior is shaped by eventsinside the individual:

frustrationstrategiesdefense mechanisms

Intervention strategy:"Consciousness raising"

conditions(Struaure)

The Exferna/Structura/ Perspective— behavior Is shaped by conditionsoutside the individual;

social pressureconflict of interestprocedures

Intervention strategy:"Contextual modification"

The Internal Structural Perspective— behavior is shaped by conditionsinside the individual:

motivesattitudesskills

Intervention strategy:"Selection and training"

FIGURE 1. The Two Distinctions which Define the Four Perspectives, with Some Examples ol KeyDiagnostic Variables and the Four Broad Intervention Strategies.

their effects. Conflict behavior has been assertedto be a response to competition (8, 41), threat(25), negative evaluation (34), encroachment (2),and coercion (62). Third party interventions alsomay be viewed as external events to which theparties react, as in process interventions dis-cussed by Schein (66) and Walton (83).

Intervention: "lirteraction Management"

Since the manner of interaction is seen asthe basis of the conflict, the change agent's focusis on changing interactions. This change objec-

tive is non-substantive in that the change agentis not especially concerned with the content ofthe interactions (i.e., the issues of the conflictsituation), but with specific behaviors used bythe parties in negotiating or otherwise attempt-ing to influence each other.

The class of interventions by which changeagents attempt to achieve this objective is termed"interaction management". 2 Change agents

2 This term has nothing to do with the Interaction Manage-'ment Program produced by Development Dimensions, InPittsburgh.

Academy of Management Review - January 1978 63

may intervene directly into the interaction torontrol behavior by acting as "referee" to stopunfair behavior, rephrasing statements to makethem less provocative, acting as timekeeper andgatekeeper to insure equal time (83), and so on.They may also act as role models (3) to providean example of effective modes of interaction. Forexample, a change agent may purposely be non-evaluative and descriptive. The crucial nature ofthe intervention in this case is the change agent'stype of behavior. The parties may adopt similarbehavior through identification with the changeagent (58), thereby reducing defensiveness andfacilitating problem solving.

The External Structural Perspective

The external structural perspective placesthe causes of behavior in conditions outside theparties. Conditions in the environment are seenas motivating, constraining, or channeling be-havior.

Diagnosis

In a review of the literature on organiza-tional conflict, Thomas (78) identified three clus-ters of external conditions which influence con-flict behavior — conflict incentives, social pres-sures, and rules and procedures.

"Conflict incentives" is used in a broadsense to include the objectives of the parties andthe manner in which satisfaaion of those objec-tives is linked. Two central components dis-cussed have been the stakes involved (11, 29, 31)and the conflict of interest between goals of theconflict parties (4,23,68,71, 85).

Social pressures can be viewed as barriers(83) and forces. Thomas (78) differentiated be-tween pressures from constituents (9, 50, 74) andambient social pressure" — social pressure from

relatively neutral onlookers who enforce thenorms of the larger organization (12, 45, 47) orculture (75).

Finally, the conflict parties can be viewed asinteracting within a framework of rules and pro-cedures which shape their negotiations — as well

as their opportunities to interfere with each oth-er (68). The conflict behavior of the two partieshas been linked to several aspects of establishednegotiating procedures — frequency of contact(84), barriers to openness (54), formality (49), andsequencing of issues (11). Explicit decision rulesevolve to cover sensitive issues (28, 77). Variousforms of mediation or arbitration mechanismsmay be available when the parties deadlock (32,70,73).

Intervention: "Contextual Modification"

Change objectives focus upon alteration ofexternal conditions which exert forces upon theparties. Interventions which seek to alter this ex-ternal context of the parties' behavior are la-beled "contextual modification". Methods tochange the responsibilities of either party, formaland informal rules, job descriptions, incentives,budgets, control mechanisms, social pressures,etc., fit this category. These methods might in-clude: (a) formally dictating a change in policyor goals of either or both parties, (b) mandatinga negotiation session between parties in whichthey have to compromise their budget demands,(c) changing the composition of members be-longing to either or both parties, (d) changingthe social pressures which other bystanders exertupon the parties, and (e) instituting superordi-nate goals so that the parties benefit by cooper-ating with each other. Aspects of contextualmodification are now receiving increasing em-phasis as the field of organizational behaviorleans more heavily toward organizational design(42,43).

The Internal Process Perspective

This perspective seeks the source of behav-ior in the sequence of events which occurs with-in a party. In the case of individuals, behavior isseen as an outcome of the logic or "psychologic"(57) of perceptions, ideas, and emotions. Where-as the internal structural perspective emphasizesconsistencies and personal fixities, this perspec-tive emphasizes the moment-to-moment changes

four Perspectives on Conflict Management: An Attributional Framework

in the individual's phenomenology and thechoices which are made at any given moment.The individual is an ongoing process, rather thanan object with stable characteristics (15), a viewemphasized in humanistic psychology. Whenthe conflict party is a larger social unit (a workgroup or organization), this focus expands toinclude the ongoing interpersonal decisionprocesses within the unit which shap>e its behav-ior toward other units.

Diagnosis

Diagnostic efforts center upon understand-ing the sequence of internal events which areshaping the conflict episode. In his processmodel, Thomas (78) emphasized the importanceof understanding the specific nature of the ac-tual or anticipated frustrations which begin con-flict episodes — i.e., the underlying concerns oragendas of the parties. That model also empha-sized the importance of the parties' conceptual-izations of the conflict situation — their defini-tions of the issues and their assumptions aboutpossible outcomes.

The change agent operating from this per-sf>ective will want to understand the strategicand tactical logic of each party. Parties may adoptpolitical strategies involving coalitions (15, 21,33), interpersonal strategies involving games orploys (7, 36, 60), bargaining strategies involvingpower (67) and so on. Occasionally violence maybe understood as a deliberate and rational tacticunder this perspective (55), although the partiesmay aiso realize the advantages of limiting ormanaging their conflict (19, 27).

Less rational decision processes also are im-portant from this perspective. Conflict behaviormay stem from misperceptions (9, 24), projection(35), selective attention and recall (22), polariza-tion and stereotyping (57), and the inability torecognize alternatives (20).

Intervention: "Consciousness Raising"

Given the assumption that the parties' con-flict behavior stems from their internal processing

of decisions, the change agent's objective is toinfluence the parties' perceptions, cognitions,and emotions regarding the ongoing conflict.Such interventions are termed "consciousness-raising" interventions. Included are many tradi-tional interventions used by the trainer of a sen-sitivity training group (13), where discussions of"here and now" experiences can lead to newappreciation of an ongoing interpersonal proc-ess, awareness of alternative behaviors and theireffects, correction of perceptual distortions, andworking-through of feelings. Also included areindividual or joint counseling sessions aimed athelping the parties to recognize their frustrationsand objectives, think through the consequencesof alternative paths, and work through ambiva-lences about a course of action (20).

Although internal process or consciousness-raising interventions may result indirectly in al-tered modes of interaction between parties, de-cisions regarding external structural change, orlong-run changes in a party's internal structur-ing, these are not the primary objectives of aninternal process intervention. The primary ob-jective is to improve the parties' internal proc-essing of decisions regarding the current conflictepisode. Although the term "consciousness-raising" carries connotations of neutral activitiesintended only to bring some phenomenon intoawareness, these interventions may also involveadvocacy and persuasion. Nevertheless, con-sciousness-raising interventions tend to be themost humanistic, in the sense of treating the par-ties as responsible decision makers.

The Internal Structural Perspective

This perspective seeks the causes of the par-ties' behavior in relatively stable characteristicswithin them, and in the manner in which thesecharacteristics are organized. The parties' behav-ior is viewed as an expression of their make-up-This "personality" or "organization" is seen as acompelling influence upon behavior, predispos-ing parties to characteristic patterns of behavior.

Academy of Management Review - January 1978

Diagnosis

An explanation of the general status of aparty's relationships with other parties is soughtin terms of the party's characteristics, whetherbased upon instinct (46), culture and socializa-tion (75), or other factors.

To some extent, a party's conflict-handlingbehavior may be seen in terms of habitual re-sponse hierarchies and styles (5, 10). Althoughtrait theories are not currently in vogue, someresearch evidence indicates a degree of regular-ity in conflict-related behaviors. For example,Gormly and Edelberg (37) found evidence thatan individual's assertiveness is reliable across sit-uations.

The party's general behavior also may beunderstoctd in terms of stable underlying attrib-utes which shape behavior: motives and needs(76), value systems (17, 24), information-process-ing limitations (38), chararteristic defense mech-anisms (1, 64), and diagnostic and problem-solv-ing skills.

In diagnosing conflict in a specific relation-ship, attention may be focused upon incompati-bilities between styles, needs, etc., of the twoparties (53,69,83).

Intervention: "Selection and Training"

As in the internal process perspective, thechange agent is concerned with altering thingswhich are internal to the parties. But while theinternal process perspective sought to influencedecision-related events within the parties duringa specific conflict episode, the internal structuralperspective is concerned directly with changingthe parties themselves — i.e., with making stablechanges which will continue to influence theparties' behavior across a number of episodes.The emphasis is upon lasting change rather thanfacilitating a single here-and-now interaction.Change efforts are therefore likely to be moresystematic, involving a program of interventions.

One approach to changing the conflict-han-dling characteristics of individuals in a given or-ganizational position is through the selection of

65

those people — through recruiting and screen-ing managers for initial hiring and for promotionto any given position. Questions about coopera-tive work relations are common in reference let-ters and the performance appraisals upon whichpromotions are based. Similar screening proce-dures may be applied to organizations them-selves — for governmental licensing, and for ad-mission to trade organizations and other alli-ances.

"Training" is used here to denote all inter-ventions directed at producing lasting changesin parties which have already been selected. Inthe case of individuals, this may include formalor informal socialization of managers into ac-ceptance of organizational norms and values,educational programs directed at cognitivelearnings, job rotation practices which facilitateinterdepartmental coordination by giving man-agers a common perspective, laboratory trainingprograms (13) designed to give managers diag-nostic and aaion skills in interpersonal relations,and provisions for individual therapy.

Implications

This meta model or franrwwork can be usedto help potential change agents identify theirdiagnostic and intervention styles — by surfac-ing assumptions about the source of conflict,and by classifying their preferred interventions.Development of specialized styles may be func-tional for a change agent, and the four perspec-tives help to identify the change agent'sstrengths. By implication they also help to iden-tify blind spots.

One normative suggestion deriving fromthis article is that the change agent and practi-tioner should be explicit about their concep-tualizations, and explicitly consider the fourkinds of diagnoses and intervention strategies inchoosing how to deal with an important conflictsituation. In effect, these four perspectives canbe used as a "checklist" to suggest the full rangeof possibilities. Having a wider choice of alterna-tives would enable a more realistic cost/benefit

f6 Four Perspectives on Conflict Management: An Attributional Framework

analysis (81) — i.e., an assessnnent of the costs ofeach type of diagnosis and corresponding inter-vention strategy versus the expected short orlong range benefits to be derived from the inter-ventions. Even if change agents themselves arenot equally skilled in implementing the four per-spectives, conscious awareness of all four ap-proaches can allow them to involve appropriateothers and prevent them from using theirstrengths inappropriately.

One can argue normatively for a team ofchange agents with different perspectives to ad-dress important conflict situations. If no singleperson can be expert in applying more than oneor two perspectives, a team can be composed sothat all four perspectives will be equally consid-ered, coordinated, and applied as necessary. Thepresent meta model of the four fjerspectives maygive the team a common framework for organiz-ing and appreciating their diversity of ap-proaches, resulting in a true systems approach toconflict management. Such an approach may be-come more necessary as organizations face morecomplex, dynamic, and changing environments,where the sources of frequent conflicts are com-plex and multidetermined.

Although the four perspectives and modelemerged from a review of conflict literature, theyare easily generalizable to the understandingand influencing of other behavioral phenom-ena. If management is viewed as a process of in-fluencing others, the four perspectives can beused to classify approaches to management in

general: (a) the external process approach isroughly equivalent to close supervision and di-rect control of others' work; (b) the internalprocess approach includes counseling and help-ing individuals to define their own goals, whichare basic elements of Management by Objec-tives (61); (c) the external structural approach in-volves management through incentives, rules,control systems, and organizational design tech-nologies (42); and (d) the internal structural ap>proach includes recruiting, placement, andtraining.

In short, this meta model provides a newapproach to classifying managerial style — onewhich emphasizes the individual's implicit phil-osophy of how people are influenced, ratherthen inter-personal manner (whether one isconsiderate, assertive, etc.). This scheme com-bines a number of important philosophies ofmanagement — not only the classic BehavioralScience process distinctions of close Theory Xsupervision vs. Theory Y counseling and goal set-ting (48), but also the Management Theory em-phasis on incentives and control systems, and In-dustrial Psychology emphasis on selection andtraining. Subsequent development of instrumen-tation to assess managerial reliance upon thefour perspectives may provide a means of iden-tifying these managerial philosophies at the levelof the individual practitioner, thereby enablingresearch on the effects of these philosophiesupon workers and the organization.

REFERENCES1. Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkei-Brunswik, Daniel V.

Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. The Authoritarian Per-sonality {New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950).

2. Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative (New York;Dell, 1966).

3. Argyris, Chris. Intervention Theory (Reading, Mass.: Ad-dison-Wesley, 1970).

4. Axelrod, Robert. Conflia of Interest (Chicago, III.: Mark-ham, 1970).

5. Berkowitz, Leonard. /Aggression.- A Social PsychologicalAnalysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1%2).

6. Bernard, Jessie. 'The Conceptualization of IntergroupRelations," Social Forces, Vol. 29 (1951), 243-251.

7. Berne, Eric. Games People Play (New York: Grove Press,1964).

8. Bizenstine, V. Edwin, and Kellog V. Wilson. "Effect ofLevel of Cooperative Choice by the Other Player onChoice in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game, Part I I , " Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 (1963), 139-147.

9. Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. "Reactions to In-tergroup Competition under Win-Lose Conditions,"Management Science, Vol. 7 (1961), 420-435.

Academy of Management Revievt^ - January - 1978 67

10 Blaker Robert R., and Jane S. M o u t o n . The ManagerialGrid (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1964).

n Blake, Robert R., Herbert A. Shepard, and Jane S. M o u -ton Managing Intergroup Conflict in Industry (Houston,Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1964).

12 Blau, Peter M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Chicago,III.: University of Chicago Press, 1955).

13 Bradford, Leland P., Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne(Eds.). T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method (NewYork: Wi ley, 1964).

14 Bugental, James F. T. The Search for Authenticity (NewYork: Hol t , Rinehart, and Winston, 1%5).

15 Bugental, James F. T. "Someone Needs to Worry : TheExistential Anxiety of Responsibility and Decis ion,"Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Vol. 2 (1%9),41-53.

16. Caplow, Theodore. Two Against One: Coalitions in Tri-ads (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968).

17 Christie, Richard, and Florence L. Geis. Studies in Mach-iavellianism (New York: Academic Press, 1970).

18 Clark, James V., and Charles G. Krone. 'Towards anOverall View of Organizational Development in theEarly Seventies," in John M . Thomas and Warren G. Ben-nis (Eds), Management of Change and Conflict (Balti-more, M d . : Penguin Books, 1972).

19. Coser, Lewis. "The Terminat ion of Conf l ic t , " Journal ofConflia Resolution, Vol . 5 (1961), 347-354.

20. Culbert, Samuel A. The Organization Trap and Hovtr toGet Out of It (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

21 Dal ton, Melv i l le . M e n W h o Manage (New York: Wileyand Sons, 1959).

22 Dearborn, Dewi t t C , and Herbert A. Simon. "SelectivePercept ion: A Note on the Departmental Ident i f icat ionsof Executives," Sociometry, Vo l . 21 (1958), 140-144.

23 Deutsch, M o r t o n . " A Theory of Cooperat ion and C o m -pe t i t i on , " Human Relations, Vo l . 2 (1949), 129-152.

24 Deutsch, M o r t o n . "Con f l i c t : Productive and Destruc-t ive," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 25 (1%9), 7-41

25 Deutsch, M o r t o n , and Robert M . Krauss. "Studies in In-terpersonal Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol. 6 (1%2), 52-76.

26 Dol lard, John, Leonard Doob , Neal Mi l ler , O . H. M o w -rer, and Robert R. Sears. Frustration and Aggression(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939).

27 Donnel ly, Lawrence I. ' T o w a r d an All iance Between Re-search and Practice in Col lect ive Bargaining," PersonnelJournal, Vo l . 50 (1971), 372-379,399.

28 Dunlop, John T. Industrial Relations Systems (New York:Holt , Rinehart, and Winston, 1958).

29 Emerson, Richard M . "Power-Dependence Relation-ships," American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 (1962), 31-41.

>0 Fink, C l in ton F. "Some Conceptual Diff icult ies in theTheory of Social Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolu-tion, Vo l . 12 (1968), 412-460.

31. Gallo, Phill ip S. "Effects of Increased Incentives Uponthe Use of Threat in Bargaining," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 4 (1966), 14-20.

32. Galtung, johan. " Inst i tut ional ized Confl ict Resolut ion,"Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 4 (1%5), 348-397.

33. Gamson, Wil l iam A. "Experimental Studies of Coalit ionFormat ion," Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, Vol . 1 (1964), 81-110.

34. Gibb, Jack R. "Defensive Communica t ion , " fTC; A Re-view of General Semantics, Vol . 22 (1%5), 221-229.

35. Gladstone, Arthur. ' T h e Concept ion of the Enemy,"Journal of Conflia Resolution, \ol 3 (1959), 132-137.

36. Gof fman, Erving. Strategic interact ion (Philadelphia:Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1%9).

37. Gormley, John, and Walter Edelberg. "Val idi ty in Per-sonality Trait A t t r ibu t ion , " American Psychologist, Vol .29 (1974), 189-193.

38. Hayakawa, S. 1. language in Thought and Action, 2nded. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Wor ld , 1%3).

39. Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wol fe , Robert P. Q u i n n , J.Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal. Organizat ion-al Stress: Studies in Role Conflia and Ambiguity (NewYork: Wiley, 1964).

40. Kelley, Harold H. ' T h e Processes of Causal Anr ibu t ion , "American Psychologist, Vol . 28 (1973), 107-128.

41. Kelley, Harold H., and Anthony ). Stahelski. "Social In-teraction Basis of Cooperators' and Compet i tors ' Be-liefs About Others," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol . 16 (1970), 66-91.

42. Kilmann, Ralph H. Social Systems Design: NormativeTheory and the MAPS Design Technology (New York:Elsevier Nor th-Hol land, 1977).

43. K i lmann, Ralph H., Louis R. Pondy, and Dennis P. Slevin.The Management of Organization Design (Volumes Iand II (New York: Elsevier Nor th-Hol land, 1976).

44. Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley. TheDynamics of Planned Change (New York: Harcourt,Brace and Wor ld , 1958).

45. Li twin, George H., and Robert A. Stringer, Jr. Motivationand Organizational Climate (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Un i -versity, 1968).

46. Lorenz, Konrad. On Aggression (New York: Harcourt,Brace and Wor ld , 1966).

47. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations(New York: Wiley and Sons, 1958).

48. McGregor, Douglas M. The Human Side of Enterprise(New York: McGraw-Hi l l , 1960).

49. McKersie, Robert B., and W. W. Shropshire, Jr. " A v o i d -ing Wr i t ten Grievances: A Successful Program," ThsJournal of Business, Vol . 35 (1%2), 135-152.

50. Megginson, Leon C , and C. Ray Gullett. " A PredictiveMode l for Union-Management Conf l ic t , " PersonnelJournal, Vo l . 49 (1970), 495-503.

51. Murray, Henry A. fxp/orat ion in Personality (New York:Ox fo rd University Press, 1938).

68 Four Perspectives on Conflict Management: An Attributional Framework

52. Murray, V. V. "Some Unanswered Questions on Organ-izational Conflict," Organization and AdministrativeSciences, Vol. 5 (1975), 35-53.

53. Myers, Isabel B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1962).

54. Newcomb, Theodore M. "Autistic Hostility and SocialReality," Human Relations, Vol. 1 (1947), 69-86.

55. Nieburg, H. L. "Uses of Violence," Journal of ConfliaResolution, Vol. 7 (1%3), 43-54.

56. Nye, Robert D. Conflia Among Humans (New York:Springer, 1973).

57. Osgood, Charles E. "An Analysis of the Cold War Men-tality," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 17 (1%1), 12-19.

58. Peters, David R. Identification and Personal Change inLaboratory Training Croups (Ph.D. dissertation, Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology, 1966).

59. Pondy, Louis R. "Organizational Conflict: Concepts andModels," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12(1%7), 296-320.

60. Potter, Stephen. The Complete Upmanship (New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971).

61. Raia, Anthony P. Managing by Objeaives (Glenview,III.: Scott, Foresman, 1974).

62. Raven, Bertram H., and Arie W. Kruglanski. "Conflictand Power," in Paul Swingle (Ed.), The Structure of Con-flict (New York: Academic Press, 1970), pp. 69-109.

63. Robbins, Stephen P. Managing Organizational Conflia:A Nontraditional Approach (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren-tice-Hall, 1974).

64. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind (NewYork: Basic Books, 1960).

65. Rotter, Julian B. "Generalized Expectancies for InternalVersus External Control of Reinforcement," Psycholog-ical Monographs, Vol. 80 (1966), 1-28.

66. Schein, Edgar H. Process Consultation: Its Role in Or-ganization Development (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1%9).

67. Schelling, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1963).

68. Schmidt, Stuart M., and Thomas A. Kochan. "Conflict:Toward Conceptual Clarity," Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 17 (1972), 359-370.

69. Schutz, William C. 'The Interpersonal Underworld,"Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 (1958), 123-135.

70. Scott, William G. The Management of Conflict: AppealSystems in Organizations (Homewood, III.: Irwin-Dorsey,1965).

71. Sherif, Muzafer. "Superordinate Goals in the Redunionof Intergroup Conflict," The American Journal of Soci.o/ogy. Vol. 63 (1958), 349-356.

72. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior (Glencw,III.: Free Press, 1957).

73. Stagner, Ross, and Hjalmar Rosen. Psychology of Union-Management Relations (Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Col«Publishing Co., 1965).

74. Stern, Irving, and Robert F. Pearse. "Collective Bargain-ing: A Union's Program for Reducing Conflict, Person-nel. Vol. 45, No. 3 (1968), 61-72.

75. Storr, Anthony. Human Aggression (New York: Anthen-eum, 1968).

76. Terhune, Kenneth W. 'The Effects of Personality in Co-operation and Conflict," in Paul Swingle (Ed.), The Struc-ture of Conflict (New York: Academic Press, 1970).

77. Thibaut, John W., and Harold H. Kelley. The Social Psy-chology of Croups (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1959).

78. Thomas, Kenneth W. "Conflict and Conflict Manage-ment," in Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago, III.: RandMcNally, 1976), Chapter 21, pp. 889-935.

79. Thomas, Kenneth W. "Toward Multi-Dimensional Valuesin Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviors," Acad-emy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (July 19771,484-490.

80. Thomas, Kenneth W., and Ralph H. Kilmann. "The So-cial Desirability Variable in Organizational Research: AnAlternative Explanation for Reported Findings," Acad-emy of Management Journal, Vol. 18 (1975), 741-752.

81. Thomas, Kenneth W., Richard W. Walton, and John MDutton. "Determinants of Interdepartmental Conflict,"in Matthew Tuite, Roger Chishol.m, and Michael Radnor(Eds.), Interorganizational Decision Making (Chicago,111.: AWine, 1972).

82. Toch, Hans B. Violent Men (Chicago: Aldine, 1969).83. Walton, Richard E. Interpersonal Peacemaking; Cor\-

frontations and Third Party Consultation (Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1%9).

84. Walton, Richard E., John M. Dutton, and H. GordonFitch. "A Study of Conflict in the Process, Structure, andAttitudes of Lateral Relationships," in Albert H. Ruben-stein and Chadwick 1. Haberstroh, Some Theories of Or-ganization (Homewood, 111.: Irwin, 1966).

85. Walton, Richard E., and Robert B. McKersie. "BehavioralDilemmas in Mixed-Motive Decision-Making," Behsv-ioral Science, Vol. 2 (1966), 370-384.