CONFLICT AT WORK THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS

Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations CONFLICT AT WORK THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS David Jaffee University of North Florida 4567 St Johns Bluff Road South Jacksonville, FL 32224 904-620-2700 djaffee@unf.edu In Carsten K.W De Dreu and Michele J Gelfand, eds., The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2008 Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations This chapter will provide a meta-theoretical analysis of the sources of conflict in organizations, and the role of conflict in organization theory, throughout the past century and a half The history of organizational conflict will be conceptualized as a history of tension and change in both organizations and the theoretical literature Tension is created by the human capacity to resist structural constraints and to strive for a more congenial organizational environment Change is generated by the dialectical interplay between these organizational structures and human reactions This interchange has produced continuous changes within organizations and has driven the evolution of organizational theories and managerial strategies There is no final resolution to the organizational tensions and conflicts They are permanent feature of all organizational systems populated by the human factor The evolution of management strategy and organization theory can be chronicled as a history of trial and error in developing methods and techniques for managing and conceptualizing these tensions The first section of the paper will develop the outlines of a theoretical approach explaining organizational conflict and a meta-theoretical framework for understanding the evolution of organization and management theory This will set the stage for the subsequent sections of the chapter that apply the framework to the historical sweep of theoretical developments in the study of organizations The starting point for this analysis of organizational conflict begins with the rise of the factory system and the early effort of industrial owners to recruit, control and extract human labor power The second critical phase involves the development of scientific management as a formal systematic method for managing organizational conflict and controlling factory workers This is followed by the shift toward a more humanistic approach to human conflict management Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations in organizations in the form of human relations theory and practice Rationalbureaucracy represents the fourth theoretical approach and organizational strategy for ensuring predictable control of the human factor This has prompted a fifth phase of organizational theorizing described as “post-bureaucratic” All of these approaches to organizational study are designed to understand and manage the human resource The final section of the chapter considers the most recent literature aimed at further conceptualizing various modes of organizational conflict THE FUNDAMENTAL TENSIONS GENERATING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT All organizations embody two interrelated conflict-generating tensions with which almost every organization theory has had to grapple The first – originating at the individual level – is based on the unique capacities of humans, as opposed to other organizational inputs or factors of production, to assess, subjectively evaluate, and act to change or resist, their environment The second – operating at the organizational level – is the structural differentiation of tasks, both vertically and horizontally, that produces identification and loyalty to parts rather than the whole These two fundamental organizational tensions, often working in tandem, are not only responsible for the historical legacy of organizational conflict but have also stimulated organizational theorizing and managerial strategizing Individual-Level Tension At the most fundamental and general level, organizational conflict stems from the unique capacities of humans Humans, unlike other “factors of production” or organizational inputs, have the capacity to assess subjectively their environment and act to resist, alter, or counter perceived constraints When humans Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations are embedded in organizational structures, there is an inherent tension between the goals and objectives of organizational owners and the valued discretion and autonomy of human agents This human factor tension has manifested itself in forms of conflict that have shaped the history and evolution of organization theories and management practices Put another way, this tension both produces, and is the product of, the structures and processes that we call “organization” or “administration” Two further examples of the human factor tension are worth noting First, Pondy’s (1967) widely-applied stage model of organizational conflict includes the notion of “latent conflict” defined as the “drive for autonomy” He further explains that ”autonomy needs form the basis of a conflict when one party either seeks to exercise control over some activity that another party regards as his own province or seeks to insulate itself from such control” (1967: 297) This is regarded here as an ever-present condition in all organizations That is, there is always a potential for resistance, non-compliance, and recalcitrance given the inherent controlling nature of organizational life This creates a constant state of uncertainty that precludes predictable control thus requiring theories and practices aimed at conceptualizing and managing the human factor of production A second approach to “latent conflict” is identified by Brehm and Brehm (1981) in their theory of “psychological reactance” The theory argues that a “threat to or loss of freedom motivates the individual to restore that freedom…individuals will sometimes be motivated to resist or act counter to attempted social influence” (1981:4) Organizations are constraining structures that threaten and compromise human freedom and, as such, they generate reactance and resistance Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Organizational-Level Tension A second inherent tension in all organizations is based on the division of work and authority Differentiation, divisions of labor, hierarchy, and specialization are fundamental organizational principles In almost all organizations, workers are assigned to particular jobs, departments, levels and units Such a differentiated and specialized division of labor can undermine organizational unity and stimulate organizational conflict There are two obvious and common divisions of labor within organizations First, there is the horizontal division of labor, where humans carry out different kinds of tasks at the same level of the organization Second is the vertical division of labor involving differences in power, authority, rewards, and decision-making Differentiation on both dimensions can produce organizational conflict Together, these individual and organizational level tensions have contributed to the history of organizational conflict and, in turn, the evolution of organizational and management theories (see Jaffee 2001) In this context, organizational conflict is viewed as a progressive force that draws attention to organizational problems, encourages critical reflection about the theoretical assumptions informing organizational systems, and drives changes in management practice ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT AND THE RISE OF THE FACTORY SYSTEM The emergence of a factory system of production during the early stages of industrial capitalist development in Europe and the United States presaged the beginning of organizational conflict The perpetual challenge posed by the human factor of production revealed itself even before workers had entered the factory Capitalist Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations production required that human labor be concentrated under one roof for the purpose of economic activity However, the would-be workers, anticipating a loss of freedom and autonomy entailed in a subordinate wage labor relationship with factory owners, engaged in resistance and rebellion This new relationship posed a threat to roles and identities A traditional way of life and labor was disrupted This provoked intense resistance, opposition, and conflict over the emerging organization of factory production (see Pollard 1965; Thompson 1963; Bendix 1956; Montgomery 1979; Gutman 1975) One necessary condition for instituting a factory system of production is the “formal subordination of labor” (Harvey 1982) In this process, those who might have owned or had access to productive property, providing an independent means of subsistence – such as peasants, small producers, farmers, craftsmen, and artisans -gradually lose control or access to their property As increasingly larger portions of the population are forced into the labor market, where they must sell their labor power for a wage, the proletariat or working class is created A large mass of workers are now organizationally constrained within a hierarchical factory system However, the establishment of the factory and wage labor system did not signal the end of the battle with labor only a shift in terrain The struggle over the formal subordination of labor eventually subsided, and was replaced by conflicts between workers and owners over the “real subordination of labor” (Harvey 1982) entailing various managerial strategies designed to control labor and extract work effort Since there is no final solution, or one best way, to achieve this objective, it is an ongoing struggle and process in all organizations A large part of the evolution of organization Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations theory and management strategy can be chronicled as a history of trial and error in developing methods and techniques for this control and extraction At the time, however, the monumental challenge of coordinating and controlling large numbers of workers within a single factory had never been confronted on such a scale During this period, one of the most significant sources of conflict, according to Reinhard Bendix (1956), was "traditionalism" the ideological way of life among labor prescribing pre-capitalist customs, norms, routines and work habits This stood as the major obstacle to the enforcement of the "new discipline" within the factory In the United States the heterogeneity of the labor factor, fueled by the constant flow of immigrants, resulted in a variety of cultural habits that did not fit smoothly into the emerging industrial machine (Gutman 1975; Montgomery 1979) Thus, the factory organization was characterized by an array of competing forces – traditional work habits, an emerging production system, managerial strategies to break traditions and impose discipline, and the reaction and resistance of labor This produced an equally wide range of strategies to manage and contain the inevitable organizational conflicts In the early stages, the primary strategy was to develop techniques that could accommodate the traditional culture carried into the factory The system of "corporate welfare" (Montgomery 1979), for example, involved a personalized system of labor employment, recruitment, and control within a familial-like environment Over time, the system of paternalism gave way to a "subcontracting system" (see Littler 1982; Clawson, 1980) This strategy was utilized not only because it retained the familial relationships between workers and, in this case, the subcontractor or middleman (Bendix 1956), but also because owners continued to lack sufficient knowledge about production techniques Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations and the labor process (Clawson 1980) Thus, the subcontractor, who often hired friends and relatives, assumed the managerial tasks of organization and motivation Among the other, less paternalistic, methods designed to overcome problems of factory discipline were physical beating of children, the firing of workers or the threat of dismissal, and monetary fines for lateness, absenteeism and insubordination (Pollard 1965) Payment by results and piecework were also used as a means to entice labor to maximize work effort Conflict stemmed not just from the reorganization of work life, and the human reaction to it, but the hierarchical managerial command structure inherent in most organizational forms This new system in which some command and others obey -had to be bolstered with a legitimizing rationale Here we find the initial development of "managerial ideology" (Bendix 1956) which remains a powerful analytic tool for conceptualizing managerial efforts to the present day As defined by Bendix (1956: 13), managerial ideologies “interpret the facts of authority and obedience so as to neutralize or eliminate the conflict between the few and many in the interest of a more effective exercise of authority To this, the exercise of authority is either denied altogether on the grounds that the few merely order what the many want; or it is justified with the assertion that the few have qualities of excellence which enable them to realize the interests of the many” The increasingly important ideological strategy of control was a recognition that compliance could not be assured by either the wage labor relationship and or the formal authority system, exclusively There remained the human capacity for subjective and behavioral resistance As Bendix (1956:251) put it: "Beyond what commands can effect and supervision control, beyond what incentives can induce and penalties prevent, there Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations exists an exercise of discretion important even in relatively menial jobs, which managers of economic enterprises seek to enlist for the achievement of managerial ends." This residual discretion always allows workers to retain some control over the exertion of mental and physical energy In these early stages of developing a factory system of production we discover the historical legacy of the dialectical interplay involving efforts at organizational control, reactions of human resistance, and modified system of organizational control to accommodate and contain the resistance (Braverman 1972; Marglin 1974; Clawson 1980; Edwards 1979) There is no single method or strategy that ensures perpetual organizational harmony This is clearly illustrated by Edwards’ (1979) identification of organizations as “contested terrain” yielding a proliferation of managerial control strategies He analyzed three major forms of control: direct, technical, and bureaucratic Direct control involves the personal exercise of authority by bosses over their workers Technical control involves the application of technologies, such as the assembly line, that control and monitor the pace of the labor process Bureaucratic control ties the control of workers to the formal structure and social relations of the bureaucratic organization Each new form of control is developed and implemented in response to the resistance against, and failure of, its predecessor Though ultimate and effective control may be an impossible task given the unique capacities of the human labor input, it did not prevent generations of managers, and their consultants, from striving to develop such a system Nowhere has the law of unintended and unanticipated consequences (Merton 1957; Portes 2000) operated with such predictable regularity A classic example lies with the development of scientific management Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT AND SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT Scientific management can be viewed as one of the first and best known attempts to deal systematically with the problem of labor control and recalcitrance Much of the conflict and tension at the turn of the century can be linked to the perception by owners that the considerable residual discretion afforded the factory workers produced inefficiency and relatively low rates of productivity The system of scientific management under the direction of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911) was explicitly designed to address this “labor problem” in a comprehensive fashion For Taylor, the key to establishing an efficient and productive workplace required the possession and control of knowledge about the methods of production He was also interested in addressing what he described as “soldiering” – the individual and collective withholding of maximum work effort Worker control over production knowledge and know-how placed owners at a serious disadvantage Skilled workers and foremen, rather than the owners, determined the organization and pace of production The owners had to depend on these employees to organize production in what was hopefully the most efficient manner However, there were no independent and reliable means for determining whether, in fact, output was reaching an optimal level In this context, as others have noted (see Goldman and Van Houten, 1988), the knowledge of workers was a potent source of power Though workers depended upon owners for employment, owners depended on the craft knowledge of workers for production to proceed Shifting the balance of power decisively in favor of owners required eliminating this residual dependence on worker knowledge Taylor viewed this as one of the fundamental objectives of scientific management Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations The human limitations on rational decision-making coupled with the contested nature of top-down bureaucratic organizational decisions and policy – both stemming from the fundamental organizational tensions related to the human factor and the differentiation of tasks and interests are among the factors stimulating the development of alternative organizational structures This leads us to a consideration of less bureaucratically configured organizational systems THE POST-BUREAUCRATIC PARADIGM AND ORGANIZATIONAL HARMONY Formal bureaucratic organizational models are increasingly viewed as antithetical to productive and efficient organizational process, the need for organizations to be more flexible and adaptive in relation to their environment, and the increasingly knowledgebased labor processes requiring greater cooperation and collaboration Together, these forces create tensions and conflicts within bureaucratic organizations that prompt alternative paradigms and managerial practices Post-bureaucracy is clearly the trend in both the practical world of management and the theoretical world of organizational studies (Clegg 1990; Heckscher and Donnelon 1994; Barzelay 1992) It is also an underlying element in other more recent organizational developments including postFordism, lean production, and flexible specialization (Castells 1996; Sayer and Walker 1992; Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990; Piore and Sabel 1984; Harrison 1994) Heckscher (1994) has outlined the main features of post-bureaucracy In contrast to bureaucratic theory, organizational efficiency and harmony in this model is based not on formalization, instrumentalism, or rational-legal authority but rather dialogue, persuasion and trust Based on the preceding discussion, this would suggest a reduced Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations need for formal authority and punishment-centered bureaucratic rules Consensual participatory decision-making carries the day Practices supporting the post-bureaucratic organization include: informationsharing and dissemination; organizational behavior and action guided not by formal roles and job descriptions but by professional principles; interaction, communication, and decision-making driven by problems and projects rather than top-down directives; and evaluation and reward based on peer input and negotiated standards of performance Taken together, Heckscher’s ideal type post-bureaucracy rests on what he calls the “master concept” which is “an organization in which everyone takes responsibility for the success of the whole If that happens, then the basic notion of regulating relations among people by separating them into specific predefined functions must be abandoned organizational control must center not on the management of tasks, but the management of relationships they are essentially structures that develop informed consensus rather than relying on hierarchy and authority” (italics in original 1994:24) The post-bureaucratic organization proposes replacing one method of control -formal structural differentiation of functions and authority with another structures that develop “informed consent.” This poses a central organizational tension in the absence of formal bureaucratic control and coordination, organizational members are given wide latitude to pursue a variety of goals Control in this model is regained through collective peer pressure and obligations stemming from team membership Social integration takes precedence over differentiation and specialization In such nonbureaucratic organizational settings, “organizational culture” (Schein 1992) does the Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations heavy lifting in the management of individual behavior and social relationships More specifically, organizations require “strong cultures” which are “based on intense emotional attachment and the internalization of ‘clearly enunciated company values’ that often replace formal structures…The ideal employees are those who have internalized the organization’s goals and values – its culture – into their cognitive and affective make-up, and therefore no longer require strict and rigid external control” (Kunda 1992: 10) These modes of “normative control” (Etzioni 1961) are designed to contain the ever-present latent conflict inherent in all organizations CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS A number of recent contributions to the analysis of organizational conflict, which not fall neatly into the broad organization theory categories outlined above, are considered in this final section We will review the perspectives that focus on the microfoundations of conflict, the role of “dignity” in generating organizational tension and conflict, and the deployment of subtle modes of resistance Micro-Foundations of Organizational Conflict Bowles and Gintis (1990), two neo-Marxist theorists who have traditionally focused on broader forms of social class conflict, developed a model that rests on the micro (rather than macro) foundation of conflict, embedded in the struggle over individual work effort between workers (labor) and owners (capital) Their analysis assumes that labor (workers, employers) has a desire to minimize work effort while capital (owners, employees) seeks to maximize work effort The traditional method for extracting work effort, and discouraging lollygagging, is the threat of dismissal The problem from the perspective of owners, however, is that the amount of effort employees Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations expend is difficult to gauge, effectively and reliably This is increasingly the case as work becomes less manual and more mental, less the production of physical objects and more the production and organization of knowledge Employers can attempt to measure work effort through greater supervision, bureaucratic monitoring, and surveillance However, as the underlying premise of this chapter would suggest, humans subjected to this regime of oversight have the capacity to subjectively assess this organizational arrangement They may assume that it represents a pronounced lack of trust by employers, and this may produce greater hostility and resentment Added to the potentially negative impact on worker morale are the “hard” costs associated with layers of additional supervisory management (what David Gordon 1996 called “guard labor”) and technological monitoring devices A new dilemma is generated: the hard (personnel, technology) and soft (employee morale, organizational climate) costs nullify the gains derived from the enhanced detection of shirking? For Bowles and Gintis, who are economists, the additional hard costs produce inefficiencies and non-optimal outcomes that can only be addressed by examining and reconfiguring the microfoundational relations between labor and capital; in particular the different interest’s workers and owners have in the expending of work effort One solution to this conflict -workers ownership and control would give workers an interest in efficiency and productivity Workers would self-monitor their own effort and have an interest in also monitoring the effort of their coworkers This would presumably produce greater harmony and productivity without the heavy costs of bureaucratic surveillance and worker distrust Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Worker Dignity and Conflict More recently, Randy Hodson (2001) has advanced the concept of “dignity” as a key entry point into workplace relations and organizational conflict As an inalienable trait carried into the organization by the human factor of production, Hodson suggests that all humans have an inherent dignity that is developed through social action More specifically, “workers from all walks of life struggle to achieve dignity and to gain some measure of meaning and self-realization at work The achievement of dignity at work thus depends on creative and purposive activity on the part of workers” (2001:4) Dignity is something that all humans desire and seek to realize in the various spheres of social participation It entails self-worth, self-respect, and enjoying the respect of others In the context of work and organization, it is assumed that the realization of dignity is potentially problematic, prompting active strategies for achieving and protecting dignity Organizational conflict in this formulation stems from organizational arrangements and managerial practices that threaten dignity and that generate employee actions in defense of dignity Hodson does not presume an inherently antagonistic relationship between workers and owners that would yield perpetual organizational conflict Rather his theoretical scheme and empirical analysis is built around ethnographic case studies of a wide range of workplace settings that can produce a wide range of outcomes He does presume that most workers take pride in, and seek meaning from their work, and that they are willing to expend considerable work effort as a result Various workplace conditions, however, make this difficult and can prompt reactions that can conflict with managerial dictates Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Among the workplace conditions generating conflict, Hodson identifies: mismanagement and abuse, overwork, challenges to autonomy, and contradictions of employee involvement The first two conditions—mismanagement and abuse, and overwork—are most common in work settings characterized by unilateral managerial power and control Mismanagement denotes a chaotic and disorganized workplace that results from irresponsible, incompetent and poorly trained management Workers are challenged, under these conditions, by inadequate direction, insufficient provision of needed resources, and poor communication An abusive workplace is characterized by the arbitrary, capricious and inappropriate exercise of power over employees In both of these cases—mismanagement and abuse—it is less the actual work tasks than the subjective perception by employees of delinquent management practices that represents an affront to dignity, and which elicits the behavioral response Overwork is closely associated with the classic Marxist concept of exploitation It is manifested in the intensification of labor, the speedup, an accelerated pace of production, and the maximization of the extraction of work effort It is most common in organizations where productivity and profit depend upon quantitatively measurable output The third workplace condition—challenges to autonomy—is most common in organizational settings where employees possess more advanced craft skills, or professional credentials, that would lead them to expect the exercise of discretion in the labor process When management encroaches on employee control over decision-making Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations in these settings, efforts to reestablish autonomy and control are a common behavioral response The fourth and final workplace condition—contradictions of employee involvement—is especially relevant in the current climate of alternative non-bureaucratic team-based modes of organizational restructuring The rhetoric of workers participation, control, and ownership frequently conflicts with the true intentions of management or the actual organization of the labor process The distinction between expectation and reality gives rise to employee strategies aimed at bridging the gap Hodson analyzed not only the range of conditions that might give rise to organizational conflict, but the behavioral responses of workers to these conditions Actions taken to “safeguard dignity” are resistance, organizational citizenship, developing independent meaning system, and group relations These can be regarded as tactics aimed at restoring dignity in the face of unfavorable working conditions The most significant, for the study of organizational conflict, is resistance Resistance is not only the most common response; it can also take a variety of both active and passive modes (Hodson 1995) Actively, employees can engage in direct conflict through sabotage, strikes, walkouts, and confrontations with management and other employees Passively, employees can withhold their effort and commitment, bypass unpleasant requirements, or engage in non-cooperative behavior There is now an emerging literature dealing with informal and unorganized forms of resistance in organizations (Davis and McAdam 2000; Jermier et al 1994) Morrill et al (2003: 392) describe “covert political conflict” as the means by which “subordinate groups express their political grievances against superiors, displaying tacit, if not explicit, Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations coordination and various forms of group solidarity By contrast, organizational elites and superiors typically deploy formally structured instruments of control as they engage in political struggles with subordinates” Differential access to the formal means of social control suggests that subordinates resort to informal covert techniques that can include material and personal sabotage, theft, non-cooperation, strategic inaction, and symbolic disrespect or escape Future studies of organizational conflict are well advised to include and acknowledge these employee strategies that not necessarily involve formal or interpersonal encounters between conflicting parties CONCLUSION The history of organizational conflict can be analyzed with a meta-theoretical framework that identifies the constant and overarching challenges facing all organizations These challenges, or tensions, stem from the unique capacities of the human factor of production and the differentiation of organizational roles These two factors not only contribute to the galvanization of resistance and conflict; they are also a constant preoccupation of organization theories As permanent features of all human organization, they must be addressed in both theory and practice This can be clearly demonstrated by a careful review of the historical evolution of organization theory and management practice Theories based on assumptions about human motivation and needs, and the requisite structural arrangements, inform the implementation of management strategies As human action renders the strategy problematic, produces unintended consequences, or provokes challenges and resistance, new organization Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations theories are developed and applied The new theories and practices meet with the same fate as their predecessors Though conflict is often viewed as a dysfunctional aspect of organizations, particularly by those interested in preserving the status quo and maintaining predictable control, it is, in fact, as Marx might have said, the “motor of history” In this case, it is the engine of change that compels organizational owners and managers continually to develop alternative techniques that acknowledge the human factor and that may advance positive and progressive change The tension, conflict, and change framework advanced in this chapter is based on the fundamental sociological tenet that situates human behaviors within a socialstructural context While the unique capacity of humans provides the raw material for organizational social dynamics, it is when individuals are embedded in organizational structures that constrain, control, and differentiate that the likelihood of tension and conflict increase That is, we would expect to find various forms of organizational conflict regardless of the particular individual, psychological, or personality characteristics of the population The big question for the field of organizational conflict is the extent to which conflict stems from the individual traits transported into the organization by organizational members, or whether it is based on behaviors that emerge out of the organizations social structure Ideally, both levels of analysis must be incorporated into conceptual models and empirical investigations Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations REFERENCES Aldrich, Howard 1979 Organizations and Environment Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Argyris, Chris 1964 Integrating the Individual and the Organization New York: Wiley Bacharach, Peter and Edward L Lawler 1980 Power and Politics in Organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Bazerman, Max H and Margaret A Neale 1992 Negotiating Rationally New York: Free Press Bendix, Reinhard 1956 Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization New York: Wiley Blau, Peter 1955 The Dynamics of Bureaucracy Chicago: University of Chicago Press Boswell, Terry 1987 “Accumulation innovations in the American economy: the affinity for Japanese solutions to the Current Crisis.” Pp 95-126 in Terry Boswell and Albert Bergeson, eds., America’s Changing Role in the World System New York: Praeger Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis 1990 “Contest exchange: new microfoundations for the political economy of capitalism.” Politics and Society 18:165-222 Barzelay, Michael 1992 Breaking Through Bureaucracy Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Braverman, Harry 1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century New York: Monthly Review Brehm, Sharon S and Jack W Brehm 1981 Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control New York Academic Press Burns, Tom and G.M Stalker 1961 The Management of Innovation London: Tavistock Publications Castells, Manuel 1996 The Rise of the Network Society Malden, MA: Blackwell Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Chung, Kae H and Leon C Megginson 1981 Organizational Behavior: Developing Managerial Skills New York: harper & Row Clawson, Dan 1980 Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S Industry 1860-1920 New York: Monthly Review Press Clegg, Stewart R 1990 Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World Newbury Park, CA: Sage Cohen, Susan G and Diane E Bailey 1997 What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite.” Journal of Management 23:239-263 Cooley, Charles Horton 1962 Social Organizations: A Study of the Larger Mind New York: Schocken Cyert, Richard M and James G March 1992 A Behavioral Theory of the Firm 2nd Edition New York: Blackwell Davis, Gerald F and Doug McAdam 2000 “Corporations, Classes, and Social Movements After Managerialism” Research in Organizational Behavior 22:193-236 Davis, Keith 1981 Human Behavior at Work: Organizational Behavior New York: McGraw-Hill Dohse, Knuth, Ulrich Jurgens, and Thomas Malsch 1985 “From ‘Fordism’ to ‘Toyotaism’? The social organization of the labor process in the Japanese automobile industry.” Politics and Society 14(2): 115-146 Edwards, Richard 1979 Contested Terrain: the Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century New York: Basic Books Etzioni, Amitai 1961 A Comparative Analysis of Organizations New York: Free Press Goldman, Paul and Donald R Van Houten 1988 “Bureaucracy and Domination: Managerial Strategy in Turn-of-the-Century American Industry” Pp 46-67 in Frank Hearn, Ed., The Transformation of Industrial Organization Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Gordon, David M 1996 Fat and Mean: The Corporate Squeeze of Working Americans and the Myth of Managerial “Downsizing” New York: Free Press Gortner, Harold F 1977 Administration in the Public Sector New York: Wiley Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Gouldner, Alvin 1954 Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy Glencoe, IL: Free Press 1955 Wildcat Strike Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press 1960 “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review 25: 161-178 Gutman, Herbert 1975 Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America New York: Knopf Guzzo, Richard A and Marcus W Dickson 1996 “Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness.” Annual Review of Psychology 47: 307338 Harrison, Bennett 1994 Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility New York: Basic Books Harvey, David 1982 The Limits to Capital Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Heckscher, Charles, 1994 “Defining the post-bureaucratic type.” Pp 14-62 in Charles Heckscher and Anne Donnelon, (eds.), The Post-Bureaucratic Organization Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Heckscher, Charles and Anne Donnelon 1994 The Post Bureaucratic Organization Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Hodson, Randy 2001 Dignity At Work New York: Cambridge University Press _1995 “Worker resistance: an underdeveloped concept in the sociology of work.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 16(1):79-110 Hoxie, Robert Franklin 1966 Scientific Management and Labor New York: A.M Kelley Jaffee, David 2001 Organization Theory: Tension and Change New York: McGrawHill Jermier, John M, David Knights, Walter R Nord 1994 Resistance and Power in Organizations: Agency, Subjectivity, and the Labor Process New York: Routledge Jones, Stephen R.G 1992 “Was there a Hawthorne Effect?” American Journal of Sociology 98:451-68 Katz, Daniel and Robert L Kahn 1966 The Social Psychology of Organizations Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Kunda, Gideon 1992 Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press Lawrence, Paul and Jay Lorsch 1967 Organization and Environment; Managing Differentiation and Integration Homewood, IL: R.D Irwin Likert, Rensis 1961 New Patterns of Management New York: McGraw Hill Lincoln, James R and Arne L Kalleberg 1985 “Work organization and workforce commitment: a study of plants and employees in the U.S and Japan.” American Sociological Review 50:738-760 Littler, Craig 1982 The Development of the Labor Process in Capitalist Societies Exeter, NH: Heinemann James March and Herbert Simon 1958 Organizations New York: Wiley Marglin, Stephen A 1974 "What Do Bosses Do?" Review of Radical Political Economy 6: 33-60 Maslow, Abraham H 1943 “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50:370-396 Mayo, Elton 1933 The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization New York: MacMillan _ 1945 The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization New York: Ayer McGregor, Douglas 1966 “The Human Side of Enterprise.” Pp 3-20 in Warren G Bennis and Edgar H Schein, eds., Leadership and Motivation: Essays of Douglas McGregor Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Merton, Robert 1957 Social Theory and Social Structure New York: Free Press Mintz, Beth and Michael Schwartz 1985 The Power Structure of American Business Chicago: University of Chicago Press Montgomery, David 1979 Workers’ Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles New York: Cambridge University Press Morrill, Calvin, Meyer N Zald and Hayagreeva Rao 2003 “Covert political conflict in organizations: challenges from Below.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 391-415 Neale, Margaret A and Max H Bazerman 1991 Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation New York: Free Press Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Parsons, Talcott 1947 “Introduction.” Pp 58-60 in A.M Henderson and Talcott Parsons, eds., Max Weber; Theory of Social and Economic Organization New York: Oxford University Press Pfeffer, Jeffrey 1994 Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Workforce Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R Salacik 1978., The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective New York: Harper and Row Piore, Michael J and Charles F Sabel 19984 The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity New York: Basic Books Pollard, Sidney 1965 The Genesis of Modern Management Cambridge: Harvard University Press Pondy, Louis 1967 “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models.” Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (2): 296-320 Portes, Alejandro 2000 “The Hidden Abode: Sociology as the Analysis of the Unexpected.” American Sociological Review 65: 1-18 Roethlisberger, F.J and William Dickson 1939 Management and the Worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Sayer, Andrew and Richard Walker 1992 The New Social Economy: Reworking the Division of Labor Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Scanlon, Burt and J Bernard Keys 1979 Management and Organizational Behavior New York: John Wiley Selznick, Philip 1957 Leadership in Administration New York: Harper Row Simon, Herbert 1997 Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations 4th Edition New York: Free Press Tausky, Curt 1970 Work Organizations: Major Theoretical Perspectives Itasca, IL: F.E Peacock Taylor, Frederick Winslow 1911 The Principles of Scientific Management New York: Norton Thompson, E.P 1963 The Making of the English Working Class New York: Vintage Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations Useem, Michael 1996 Investor Capitalism: How Money Managers are Changing the Face of Corporate America New York: Basic Books Womack, James, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos 1990 The Machine that Changed the World New York: Rawson Associates ... of the task, the determination of the wage rate or the general conditions of employment Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations The reaction of labor to the system of. .. organizational principle of hierarchy would, of course, generate further conflict Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations The application and implementation of scientific...Jaffee, Conflict At Work Throughout the History of Organizations This chapter will provide a meta-theoretical analysis of the sources of conflict in organizations, and the role of conflict in