The Multiple Faces of Conflict in Organizations

Author(s): Deborah M. Kolb and Linda L. Putnam

Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 3, Special Issue: Conflict and
Negotiation in Organizations: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (May, 1992), pp. 311324
Published by: John Wiley & Sons
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488478
Accessed: 23/05/2009 16:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwiley.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

John Wiley & Sons is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Organizational Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 13, 311-324 (1992)

The multiple faces of conflict in

organizations'
DEBORAH M. KOLB
Simmons College, U.S.A.

AND
LINDA L. PUTNAM
Purdue University, U.S.A.

Introduction
Conflict is a stubborn fact of organizational life. Although conflict is a familiar part of our
experience in organizations, its value and centrality to organizational theory and functioning
has waxed and waned; these changes have followed the changing winds of managerial ideology
and social theory. Early social theorists, such as Marx and Weber, viewed group conflict as
an inevitable outgrowth of social class and organization hierarchy. Threads of conflict and
its management were woven into early managerial thought, particularly in the well known
tenets of the 'classical' management and human relations theories (see Lewicki, Weiss and
Lewin, this issue). These latter works provided the foil for what followed them because, rather
than stress the inevitability and desirability of conflict, they emphasized harmony and cooperation in the workplace as desired and achievable ends.
After several decades of dormancy, the theme of conflict resurfaced in the late 1960s as
a major area of organizational research. Eschewing the cooperative, small group-oriented stance
of earlier work, this scholarship focused on the structural sources of conflict, particularly that
which occurred between various functional departments, between organized interest groups,
and across different levels in an organization. Works by Pondy (1967), Walton and McKersie
(1965), and Thomas (1976), among others, contributed to a changing view of conflict in organizations. No longer seen as dysfunctional, conflict was now a healthy process, but one that needed
to be managed and contained through negotiation, structural adaptation and other forms of
intervention.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we are experiencing another significant turn in the
development of conflict theory and practice (e.g. Kolb and Bartunek, 1992). This work suggests
that the scope of conflict and its manifestation, as enacted in organizations, extends beyond
previously existing models. Organizational conflicts are not always
or even typically
dramatic confrontations that achieve high visibility and publicity, such as strikes, walkouts
or firings. Nor is conflict usually bracketed into discrete public events and sequences, where
parties formally negotiate or involve officially designated third parties in the resolution of their
' The arguments in this paper are treated at greater length in Kolb and Putnam, 'The dialectics of disputing', in
Kolb and Bartunek, (1992).
0894-3796/92/03031 1-14$07.00
? 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

312

D. M. KOLB AND L. L. PUTNAM

differences. Rather, disputes and their ongoing management are embedded in the interactions
among organization members as they go about their daily activities. Even though some differences may be publicly aired, the vast majority occur informally and out of sight. Therefore,
the formal definitions of what constitutes 'conflict', the variety and sometimes contradictory
forms it takes, and the interactions between its forms and processes requires us to extend our
examination of conflict into the routine and mundane activities that comprise life in organizations.
Our purpose in this paper is to challenge the currently existing frameworks about conflict
in organizations, and to take a broader view. We do this by reviewing some of the more recent
work in organization theory, and by incorporating it with ethnographic studies of disputing
in other settings. We argue that these studies of disputing point to the need for a revised
understanding of the multiple faces of conflict in organizations and the dialectical relationships
among these faces.

Definitions of conflict
There are probably as many definitions of conflict as there are occasions for its occurrence.
Some definitions propose that conflict exists when there are perceived differences in interests,
views, or goals. Others suggest that for a conflict to exist, one party must actually behave
so as to interfere with the aims of another (Deutsch, 1973). Others define conflict in terms
of inconsistent claims to resources (Abel, 1982).
Recent scholarship cautions us against trying to define conflict without taking account of
contextual circumstances. It is always difficult to draw a line between episodes of 'conflict'
and the normal give and take of social interaction (Wrong, 1979). The definition of conflict
must be fluid in any situation, as different parties bring their interpretations to both perceptions
and behavior (Felstiner, Abel and Sarat, 1981; Mather and Yngvesson, 1980-1981). For our
purposes, conflict may be said to exist when there are real or perceived diferences that arise
in specific organizationalcircumstancesand that engenderemotion as a consequence.

Changingmodels of conflict in organizations

Conflict threads run through much of organization theory. Most people acknowledge that both
conflict and harmony mark social interaction; yet how the role of conflict is cast, its connection
to other features of behavior in organizations, and the value attached to it, varies across different
school of thought. In the 1960s, works on the structure of organizations stressed the necessity
for increasing functional specialization, and the inevitable conflict that results from such structural arrangements (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967; Walton and Dutton, 1969).
What distinguished this line of inquiry from earlier studies was the explicit focus on the limited
range of choices available to the manager to handle conflict, and the normatively recommended
choices which were preferred under varying circumstances. For example, in managing conflict

MULTIPLE FACES OF CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS

313

across functional boundaries, particularly where high stakes are involved, collaboration
is usually preferred to competition (Walton and Dutton, 1969) or confrontation to smoothing
and forcing (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thomas, 1976)2.
The normative perspective that underlies this line of work, and its focus on formal and
institutionalized causes and processes of conflict, has been recently challenged in two major
ways. First, shifts in world markets and the consequent revisions in corporate strategy and
structure, have resulted in organizations that are characterized less by models of bureaucracy
than by adhocracy (Drucker, 1988; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Organizations are less hierarchical, and more dominated by task forces, project teams, and product groups
entities which
can respond more quickly to changes in strategy, markets and technology. Conflict is an inevitable
element of such organizational forms. As Mintzberg (1979) describes it, adhocracies imply conflict, 'where specialists from different professions must work together on multidisciplinary teams,
and where, owing to the organic nature of the structure, the political games that result are
played without rules' (p. 462). Thus, politics and political models of organizations have supplanted those which presumed bureaucracy and formal structures.
Second, while the more traditional study of conflict presumed representative groups, engaged
in institutionalized forms of conflict management such as collective bargaining, the purview
has now been expanded to include other ways that technology and rule-making control the
expression of class conflict (Burroway, 1979; Hill, 1981; Clegg, 1981). Political theories of organization define conflict as inherent in the structure of organizations (Bacharach and Lawler,
1980; Kanter, 1977; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). In organizational politics,
shifting coalitions (or groups), each with different interests and resources, try to establish their
influence and control within constraints imposed by technology, structures, and cultures (Tichy,
1981). Propositions that specify which coalitions are of interest, and the forms of disputing
that they take, vary as a function of the theory one consults. For example, decision-making
metaphors of the firm (e.g. Cyert and March, 1963) emphasize conflicts among members of
the ruling coalition; conflict is resolved through negotiations over goals and sequential attention
to decisions. The structural mechanisms for the partial resolution of these conflicts lead to
the well-known prescriptions of specialized roles, role negotiation and the use of team configurations (Galbraith, 1977; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Miles, 1980; Thompson, 1967). However,
within these teams and across units, disputes arise regularly, and are just as likely to be handled
off-line as they are to be the subject of formal negotiations (Kunda, 1991; Kolb, 1989a).
Pluralist versions of organizations theory focus on interest group coalitions who hold each
other in check through a system of countervailing power, akin to a miniature state (Hyman,
1978). While relationships between management and workers have been described as pluralistic
2 Conflict in organization theory, particularly in the management specialities, is described as being managed structurally,

procedurally and situationally. Formal structures of organization, its hierarchy, division of labor and differentiation
by task and function are means to regulate conflict (Weber, 1968; Cyert and March, 1963; Thompson, 1967; Lawrence
and Lorsch, 1967). Conflict is contained through both structure and through organizational rules and procedures
(Weber, 1968; Edwards, 1979). In the employment relationship, conflict between employees and employers is managed
within a 'web of rules' that prescribe the ways workers and managers are to deal with each other (Dunlop, 1958).
Grievance or complaint procedures are meant to handle those disputes that arise in the daily working relationships
(Scott, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1981). These procedures serve to channel conflict into certain legitimate forms, and
thus minimize strikes and other forms of labor action (Kocham, 1980).
Situational models of conflict management shift the locus of conflict management from the systems level down
to the particular occasions when disputes break out between organizational members. These models are intended
to assist would-be conflict managers in ways to diagnose the conflict situation and to adopt the conflict resolution
mode most likely to achieve their goals (Deutsch, 1973; Thomas 1976; Rahim and Bonoma, 1979). At times, this
may mean encouraging or intensifying conflict in order to enhance the performance of a social system (Robbins,
1974;Brown, 1982).

314

D. M. KOLB AND L. L. PUTNAM

(Kerr, 1955), particularly in unionized firms, the label has been more recently used to describe
relationships between groups and units at the same hierarchical level (Morgan, 1981). Negotiation is the process most associated with managing conflict in pluralistic entities3. Those whose
research derives from this tradition are concerned with sources of power available to different
coalitions, how these sources are mobilized and used in negotiations, and with what consequences
(Bacharach and Lawler, 1980;Kanter, 1977; Mintzberg, 1985; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Again,
the relationships between organized negotiation and the coexisting and disorganized processes
of conflict expression are not considered in this work.
Third, changing demography and demand for labor has resulted in a workforce that is considerably more diverse than a comparable cohort 10 years ago. As new groups enter the workforce
and move up the organization, conflicts rooted in class, gender, race and ethnicity have become
more prominent, and are more likely to be enacted in the workplace. Societies' conflicts are
imported into organizations and these diversity-based conflicts have also become of more concern
to scholars and practitioners (Burroway, 1979;Hearn, Sheppard, Tancred-Sheppardand Burrell,
1989; Kanter, 1977; Marshall 1984). Diversity-based conflicts challenge some of the central
assumptions of organizational pluralism, namely that interested coalitions organize quickly
and efficiently, and have equal access (if not equal opportunity) to sources of power (Lukes,
1974; Hyman, 1978). Blacks, women, ethnic minorities, and other interest groups may cluster
into support groups, caucuses, or networks, but these groups generally lack the kind of voice
and clout that characterize unions or other formally and legally sanctioned employee groups.
One key problem for pluralist theories, therefore, is to explain disparities of power in organizations, and how structure and culture enable some groups to control and dominate others by
defusing some kinds of political influence while strengthening others (Braverman, 1974; Burrell
and Morgan, 1979; Burroway, 1979; Edwards, 1979; Goldman and Van Houten 1977; Kunda,
1986). If the key processes for managing conflict is structural in the first strand, and bargaining
in the second, the third or changing strand is suppression by those in power and avoidance
by those without it (Black, 1987). Those who feel their lack of power often choose to deal
with conflict in the few 'acceptable' ways that remain open to them. However, in doing so,
they often reproduce the marginality of their positions (Baumgartner, 1988; Crozier, 1964;
Mechanic, 1962; Scott, 1985; Sheppard, Lewicki and Minton, 1992).

Summary
In the early strands of organization theory, especially in its more applied forms, the management
of conflict
whether by force or consensus
is central to the smooth, integrated functioning
of organizations. Whether conflict is managed through structures and rules (Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1967), or normative appeals to culture and values (Kunda and Barley, 1988; Schein,
1985), or by learning more expert negotiation strategies (Bazerman and Neale, 1983; Lax and
Sebenius, 1986), and/or by rites and rituals (Trice, 1984; Trice and Beyer, 1984), the implications
are similar. Effective conflict management, which may include both fostering and preventing
conflict (cf. Brown, 1982), leads to higher performing organizations.
3 The focus on negotiation has eclipsed the many other ways that conflicts are dealt with in highly political organizations.
The study of negotiation has become a major growth industry. In major academic enclaves across the country, various
schools have developed a variety of perspectives on the negotiation process. These theoretical approaches include:
behavioral decision theory (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Raiffa, 1982; Walton and McKersie, 1965), psychological decision
theory (Bazerman and Neale, 1983; Neale and Northcraft, 1989), individual differences (Rubin and Brown, 1975;
Gilkey and Greenhalgh, 1986), structural approaches (Pruitt, 1981) and communications (Putnam and Poole, 1987).
Its suitability to mathematical formulation and to structured simulation in the laboratory may explain some of this
popularity.

MULTIPLE FACES OF CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS

315

While there are strong pulls toward the integration of these strands, a contrasting perspective
highlights the disintegrative tendencies of conflict in organizations, based on differences in
occupations, gender, ethnicity, and culture. These forces pull the organizations in separate
and different directions, and may eventually lead to more disintegration than unity (Edwards,
1979; Kunda, 1991; Morgan, 1981; Weick, 1979). Conflict is seen as a perennial feature of
organizations, always present in the crevices and crannies and just below the surface, bubbling
up occasionally as disputes in certain places are enacted according to particular conventions
and rule, across cultures and across diverse populations. What emerges from this recent scholarship is a picture of the modern organization as rife with conflict - conflict which has its
roots in the individual, social, organizational, and cultural relationships that overflow the existing
descriptive and normative topologies (Pondy, this issue). What is needed are different theoretical
frameworks and methods to capture these added dynamics of conflict in contemporary organizations. Ethnographic studies of disputing have much to contribute in moving us forward into
new directions.

A disputingperspectiveon conflict management

'Disputing' is the social scientist's way of talking about institutional conflict within legal and
quasi-legal procedures. To focus on a dispute(s) as the unit of analysis is to emphasize the
behavior of various parties as conflict unfolds over time, and to study the ways that the conflict
issues are made meaningful and dealt with as the conflict is resolved (Nader, 1965; Sarat, 1988).
The notion of 'disputing' implies a complex interaction of issues, players, context, and dispute
processes as the nexus for understanding how conflicts are managed in different settings.
A disputing perspective specifies a limited number of ways for the parties to deal with their
differences. The basic forms of conflict management include self-help (force, vengeance), avoidance (withdrawing from the relationship), 'lumping it' (tolerating the situation without public
comment), negotiation, and the involvement of third parties as mediators, arbitrators, and/or
adjudicators (Black, 1987; Nader and Todd, 1978). The availability of all of these basic forms
presupposes multiple tracks in the dispute that are pursued depending on who is involved,
how the social drama is orchestrated and the form dispute resolution takes (Burroway, 1979;
Yngvesson, 1978). For example, when complainants feel that a satisfactory outcome has not
been achieved, they may try again for a different resolution, using different tactics or placing
blame elsewhere. As grievances accumulate, the aggrieved engage in more defiant acts to show
the strength of their protest (Salipante and Fortado, 1988). Similarly, managers tend to treat
conflict and potential disputes as problems that can be solved through better decision-making
or improved communication (March and Simon, 1958; Kreisberg, 1973). These actions serve
to 'mask' the conflict (Kolb, 1989a) by allowing work to proceed according to traditional
decision-making rules, and by preserving working relationships which might be threatened by
more overt forms of disputing (Yngvesson, 1978).

Implicationsof a disputingperspective
By highlighting these multiple forms of dispute processing, it becomes possible to identify some
of the less obvious and less public forms of dispute resolution, such as avoidance, vengeance,
gossip, and other forms of self-help (see Morrill, 1987). Further, if we assume that these private,
non-confrontational approaches exist in great number in organizations, we can then account

316

D. M. KOLB AND L. L. PUTNAM

for the relative infrequency of publicly articulated, high visibility 'conflicts' in organizations
which are directly handled through negotiation and third party intervention (Miller and Sarat,
1980-1981).
Scholarship in disputing has not only permitted us to identify a wider variety of conflict
processes in organizations, but has also alerted us to variations among these processes and
their use. Existing research suggests that what procedure is employed in a dispute will depend
upon the relationships between the parties (Gluckman, 1955; Felstiner, 1974; Galanter, 1974;
Yngvesson and Mather, 1983), the kind of issues in dispute (Starr and Yngvesson, 1975; Silbey
and Merry, 1987) and the culture in which the procedures are embedded (Nader and Todd,
1978; Merry, 1987; Greenhouse, 1986). Despite the use of similar terms to describe conflict
procedures, empirical study suggests that the procedures take different forms in differentcontexts.
Mediation, for example, varies in form as a function of differences in practitioner, setting,
problem type, relationship of the parties to each other and to the mediator, the institutional
location of mediation, and the timing of mediation relative to other procedures (Kolb, 1983,
1989a; Silbey and Merry, 1987).
The recent study of mediation within organizations provides a good example of the blurring
of different processes as a result of the failure to clearly define boundaries across disputes.
Mediation has been advocated as an effective and fair method for resolving disputes. Studies
of mediation in simulated organizational contexts suggest that people find it fairer and more
satisfactory than other, more controlled forms of intervention (Karambayya and Brett, 1989;
Lewicki and Sheppard, 1985; Sheppard 1984). Despite these desirable attributes, recent research
suggests that managers are not natural mediators (Kolb, 1989a; Sheppard, 1984). There are
occasions when managers will mediate disputes, particularly when it is important to maintain
a working relationship between the parties. But to the degree that managers are held accountable
for particular decisions, are concerned about precedent, and overly personalize the basis of
the disagreement, they are far more likely to adopt adjudicative or inquisitorial approaches
to conflict management (Lewicki and Sheppard, 1985; Sheppard, Blumenfeld-Jones, Minton
and Hyder, 1990). These tales from the field suggests that a superior's management of conflict
with subordinates looks more like the exercise of authority than third party facilitation, and
hence suggests that we must effectively bound the conditions for 'mediatable' disputes in organizations from other organizational forms.
The disputing perspective makes another significant contribution to our understanding of
conflict management: it places emphasis on the interpretive processes that underlie and surround
the emergence of a dispute, and the ways these processes are articulated at different times
and places4. There is nothing inherent in the definition of a 'dispute', per se. It is a performance
to which different audiences attach meanings, meanings that often change over time (Felstiner
et al., 1981). Depending on the audience and the forum in which it is expressed, the same
The study of disputes has not been without its critics. Some argue that a disputing focus displays a bias toward
order and harmony because it fails to consider the reasons why people are reluctant to go public with their disputes
and engage those in authority (Cain and Kulscar, 1982; Engel, 1980). Others suggest that by extending the concept
of 'dispute' to include activities that occur outside the law, disputing has come to encompass much of dyadic interaction
(Silbey and Sarat, 1988). Kidder (1980-1981) observes that dispute studies have become, in essence, microstudies
of the management of conflict where individual perceptions, interpretations, responses and strategies become the focus
of research, with little attention to systematic outcomes such as access to justice. From a socio-legal perspective,
these critiques may be problematic. However, in contexts where conflict is seen to be an ongoing feature of organizational
life, and where it is difficult to demarcate conflict from other forms of social interaction (Turner, 1969; Wrong, 1979),
this perspective focuses attention on the micromanagement of differences, which is a new and fresh approach to the
study of conflict in organizations. As Turner (1957) observes, one of the best ways to study social systems is to locate
and isolate those points where conflict is to be found, and to consider the ways the social drama is played out (see
also Kunda, 1991).

MULTIPLE FACES OF CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS

317

dispute can be phrased in any number of different ways (Smith, 1989). How disputes are defined
as rights that are violated, interests that could be served or power that is exerted - is
a matter of choice and custom (Silbey and Sarat, 1988; Ury, Brett and Goldberg, 1988). In
other words, the issues and problems in dispute have no meaning apart from the context in
which they are enacted:

A dispute is not a static event which simply 'happens', but ... the structure of disputes,
quarrels, and offenses includes changes or transformations over time. Transformations
occur because participants in the disputing process have different interests in and perspectives on the dispute; participants assert these interests and perspectives in the very process
of defining and shaping the object of the dispute. What a dispute is about, whether it
is even a dispute or not, and whether it is properly a 'legal' dispute, may be central issues
for negotiation in the dispute process. (Mather and Yngvesson 1980-81, pp. 776-77).
Thus, there is an interaction between disputes and how they are interpreted and phrased and
the ways they are dealt with (Mather and Yngvesson, 1980-198 1; Sarat, 1988).
A third contribution of the disputing perspective is that it encourages us to go behind the
public scene and observe both rational and non-rational processes. An emphasis on the public
and formal setting has also led to conceiving management as if it were a rational process.
While the domains of public and formal conflict center on the place or locale where conflict
occurs, rationality focuses on the orientation to conflict or on the way disputes should be
handled. A rational approach to conflict views it as a conscious, premeditated activity guided
by individual decision and choice (Raiffa, 1982). Rationality captures the preconceived, logical,
and systematic side of conflict. This approach underscores the planning of manoeuvres and
the making of strategic choices in managing disputes (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Robbins, 1974).
Departures from rationality are handled through prescriptive advice and through effective training (Bazerman and Neale, 1983).
A non-rational orientation to conflict stands in opposition to the dominant perspective (Merry
and Silbey, 1984). This approach accents the unconscious or spontaneous aspects of disputing,
ones that are driven by impulse and by the feelings of participants, not simply their cognition
(Martin, 1992). Emotional reactions such as venting feelings, expressing displeasure, and feeling
hurt become means of conflict management rather than irrational displays that hinder logical
thinking (Morrill, 1987). Non-rational orientations also call attention to different forms of
conflict management such as gossip, rituals, and personalized accounts (Trice, 1984; Trice and
Beyer, 1984). Instinct, sensitivity, and situational adaptiveness become the guiding principles
for conflict management. Non-rational approaches to conflict are sometimes denigrated as the
ones exhibited by disputants who do not know better or who have not learned the appropriate
social responses. They are often equated with a feminized, and hence less valued, style of conflict
management (Bartunek and Reid, 1992; Kolb, 1992).
Finally, scholarship in disputing challenges certain normative assumptions about conflict
resolution. In most conflict theory, the last stage focuses on conflict resolution. In disputing,
conflicts are rarely resolved; instead, they are dealt with and/or processed in ways that rephrase,
repress, or redefine them and so they continue to surface again in different ways (Merry and
Silbey, 1984; Smith, 1989). In other words, the outcomes of most disputes are other disputes
with only temporary respites in between (Abel, 1982). Further, dispute resolution processes
not only affect the dispute itself but also influence the structures in which they are embedded.
Negotiation and informal third party procedures (e.g. mediation) tend to individualize conflict
and grievances, and so make systemic change less likely (Abel, 1982; Kolb, 1987). Indeed,
in the absence of legal or quasi-legal intervention, these works suggest that when disputes

318

D. M. KOLB AND L. L. PUTNAM

are settled by informal means, power relationships will remain unchanged. This pattern occurs
because dispute resolution processes tend to take on predictable forms that mobilize power
imbalance inherent in existing relationships and institutions (Bacharach and Baratz, 1962; Lukes,
1974; Galanter, 1974; Kolb, 1983). Thus, conflict management is intimately connected to processes of social control and change.
As stated earlier, studies of disputing have been primarily performed in legal and quasi-legal
contexts. In these settings, the focus on disputes enabled researchers to move out of the formal
and structured settings of the courts, in order to look more generally at the private and less
formal occasions of conflict processing (Silbey and Sarat, 1988). There is a major distinction,
5
however, between disputing in the shadow of the law and that which occurs within organizations5.
Law is not the predominant mode of social control within organizations. While federal
and state law permeates the boundaries of organizations and influences increasingly broader
domains of managerial activity (Scott et al. 1981; Selznick, 1970), organizational action is
bounded by the bureaucratic procedures, administrative orders and rules which are, of necessity,
incomplete and partial (Thompson, 1967). Labor-management relations, the rights of minorities,
and the discretion to hire, promote, and fire employees are circumscribed by legislation and
court decisions, but are largely driven by bureaucratic procedures and rules which are organizationally designed and dictated. Partially in response to the increasing legalization of the workplace, organizations have installed complaint systems that are intended to give employees voice
in the expression of their grievances (Hirschman, 1970; Ewing, 1977; Rowe, 1987; Westin and
Feliu, 1988; Ury et al. 1988; Ziegenfuss, 1988; Edelman, 1990). Open door programs, ombudsmen, peer complaint boards and multi-step grievance procedure are often instituted as means
to keep conflicts contained within the organization, to avoid litigation and to keep the government's legal arm out of the organization's human resource management affairs (Westin and
Feliu, 1988).
These formal dispute resolution systems are analogous to the adjudicative, arbitral, mediated,
and negotiated forms of dispute resolution procedures that exist in communities and have developed as alternatives to litigation (Goldberg, Green and Sander, 1985). The future study of
disputing in organizations might well focus on the cases that are processed within these formal
but non-legal systems. Empirical inquiry about organizational complaint procedures has been
rather narrow, limited primarily to formal descriptions of procedures (Foulkes, 1982; Ewing,
1977; Rowe, 1987; Westin and Feliu, 1988; Ziengenfuss, 1988) and some evaluation of satisfaction, and cost (Ury et al., 1988). The few studies that have looked into these systems in detail
discover that relatively few disputes find their way into the formal channels, and that negative
consequences (performance evaluations and promotions) accrue to those who use them (Lewin,
1987; Kolb, 1987). This is not surprising. Given the existing power structures in contemporary
organizations and the norms against public claiming (in the absence of unions, it is unlikely
that these formal channels constitute the only, or even the major location where conflict and
grievances are worked out (Kolb, 1987; Sheppard et al., 1992). Thus, to comprehensively study
disputing in organizations, we must extend the scope of research to examine the less public
5 In legal disputes, the law obviously influences the forms of dispute processing. When legal scholars consider negotiation
and other alternative dispute resolution procedures, they do so with reference to 'the shadow of the law' (Mnookin
and Komhauser, 1979). The point is that the channels of dispute processing what preceded negotiation or mediation
and what is likely to follow it
influences the structure and form of these procedures (Harrington, 1985; Silbey
and Merry, 1987). In the context of grievance mediation, Kolb (1989b) describes how the previous steps of a grievance
procedure, and the possibility that arbitration will follow, influences the ways problems are framed and the forms
of agreement used in the mediation process. Conflict in the shadow of authority is meant to suggest that the ways
conflicts are managed in organizations are likewise influenced by the structure and context in which they occur.

MULTIPLE FACES OF CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS

319

forums in which disputes are processed, so that we can delineate the dynamic relationship
between disputing in both the private and public domains.

Summary
By taking a disputing perspective, it is possible to uncover the other faces of conflict processes
in organizations. Since a disputing perspective bridges public and private domains, it provides
a basis for examining the links between bipolar opposites or the different faces of conflict
in organizations (Kolb and Putnam, 1992)6. In most studies of conflict, the public, the formal,
and the rational face of conflict have dominated the literature; this perspective has driven out,
or submerged, consideration of the private, the informal, and non-rational aspects of disputes.
Theories of organizational conflict (see, for example, Pondy (1967) and Thomas (1976) have
centred primarily on public conflicts that are sanctioned, authorized, or labeled as disputes.
Conflicts between labor and management, functional departments, and superior-subordinate
are public and visible (Kochan, 1980; Robbins, 1974). The preferred choices for managing
these disputes, namely confrontation, can be observed. Confrontation refers to overt discussion
of the conflict and underlies such alternatives as negotiation, collaboration, and mutual problemsolving (Thomas, 1976; Walton and McKersie, 1965). In public conflicts, the norms and procedures for reaching an equitable settlement surface through formally derived laws, written
documents, and public norms. For example, collective bargaining and grievance systems are
governed by public laws and written contracts (Dunlop, 1958; Kochan, 1980). Public norms
regulate employee rights and responsibilities and disputes between organizations (Brown, 1982;
Ewing, 1977).
Unlike the public arena, private disputes occur as covert or hidden conflict, often fused
with other activities. Consequently they are rarely labeled or sanctioned as disputes (Mechanic,
1962). Indeed they may be read as sabotage and disloyalty (Burroway, 1979; Hyman, 1978).
The preferred modes of conflict management in the private sphere include avoidance, accommodation, tolerance, or 'behind the scenes' coalition building (Morrill, 1992). Disputants choose
to ignore one another or forget about the grievance. They may think they cannot change the
system; hence they rely on private grievances as the primary mode of conflict management.
In the private arena, norms and rules for appropriate conflict behavior arise from the situation
rather than from public standards or bureaucratic rules (Bartunek and Reid, 1992).
Private forms of conflict management, however, are not independent of public ones. Indeed,
private forms of disputing enable public debates, formal negotiations, and grievance hearings
to function smoothly. The private chats outside meeting rooms, the coalition building at the
lunch room or on the golf course, and the gossip sessions in the halls make the formal meeting
look rational and cooperative (Van Maanen, 1992).
Formal, like public, conflicts are governed by organizational and social structures. Formal
systems institutionalize conflict management. In formal disputes, individuals often have officially
sanctioned conflict management roles such as ombudsmen, human resource personnel, negotia6 A dialectical approach is a way of considering the relationship between traditional features of organizational conflict

and their opposites. What might appear as a distinct phenomenon can be understood only with reference to its opposite,
even when the opposite concept is not visible. For example, what may seem as 'unstructured' contains the seeds
of structured; what is labeled as an 'individual phenomenon' implies the collective as well (Mitroff and Mason, 1981).
Additionally, the private management of conflict operates within the public arena, just as the public scene depends
on the private realm.
A dialectical approach looks at the way such bipolar opposites coexist, interact, and evolve in a conflict situation
(Putnam, 1990; Rawlins, 1989). More specifically, a dialectical approach seeks to uncover the nature and types of
dualities that exist for given phenomena, the way they surface in a dispute, and how they change and evolve over
time (Mitroff and Mason, 1981).

320

D. M. KOLB AND L. L. PUTNAM

tors, mediators, and employee relations specialists (Ewing, 1977; Kolb, 1987; Rowe, 1987).
Formal disputes also work within the legal system through official procedures, appropriate
topics, and protocols for grievances (Goldberg, et al. 1985). In contrast, informal disputes
center on the actions and processes of organizational members rather than on the functions
of conflict management officials. Rank and position may be treated with less esteem and norms
tend to arise from the organizational culture. For example, informal norms of conflict management might sanction hidden agendas, 'bitching', ignoring requests and other idiographic practices
(Friedman, 1992). In the informal setting, everyday practices govern the way issues evolve
and the way conflict roles emerge to manage these issues (Kolb, 1992).
In effect, the dual faces of public-private, formal-informal, and rational-non-rational underlie
all organizational conflicts7. Even though most disputes contain some elements of each face,
traditional conflict theories have attended to only one face
the public, formal, and rational
aspects of disputes. Relationships between the understudied aspects of these dualities and their
counterparts introduce issues of power and change. Although power is operative in each aspect
of these dualities, the relationship between the formal and informal or the public and private
reveal different ways that power and authority function in conflict situations. For example,
avoidance and tolerance may keep disputes below the surface and make it more difficult than
public conflicts to change existing structures and systems. By emphasizing how these multiple
faces surface in conflict situations, theorists cannot only explore the understudied faces of conflict
but also determine how power relationships and structures are altered or reaffirmed through
the disputing process.
-

However, taking a dialectical approach to disputes in organizations raises its own set of problems. For example,
when conflict is viewed through the lens of duality, it is opposition and difference that is emphasized at the expense
of similarity. In addition, the dual focus tends to reify oppositional categories and treat them as something more
than the social constructions they inevitably are. We must be sensitive to these possible problems.
7

References
Abel, R. (1982). The Politics of InformalJustice, Academic Press, New York.
Bacharach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962). 'The two faces of power', American Political Science Review,
56, 947-952.
Bacharach, S. B. and Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and Politics in Organizations,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bartunek, J. and Reid, R. (1992). 'The role of conflict in a second order change attempt'. In: Kolb,
D. M. and Bartunek, J. (Eds) Hidden Conflict in Organizations: UncoveringBehind-the-ScenesDisputes,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Baumgartner, M. P. (1988). 'Social control in suburbia'. In: Black, D. (Ed.) Toward a General Theory
of Social Control, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York.
Bazerman, M. and Neale, M. (1983). 'Heuristics in negotiation'. In: Bazerman, M. and Lewicki, R. (Eds)
Negotiating in Organization,Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Black, D. (1987). 'The elementary forms of conflict management'. Paper presented at the Distinguished
Lecture Series, School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Brown, D. (1982). Managing Conflictat OrganizationalInterfaces, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and OrganizationalAnalysis, Heineman Educational Books, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Burroway, M. (1979). ManufacturingConsent, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cain, M. and Kulscar, K. (1982). 'Thinking disputes: An essay on the origins of the dispute industry',
Law and Society Review, 16, 375.
Clegg, S. (1981). 'Organization and control', AdministrativeScience Quarterly,26, 545-562.
Crozier, M. (1964). The BureaucraticPhenomenon,University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

MULTIPLEFACESOF CONFLICTIN ORGANIZATIONS

321

Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict,Yale University Press, New Haven.
Drucker, P. (1988). 'New organizational forms', HarvardBusiness Review, January-February.
Dunlop, J. (1958). IndustrialRelations Systems, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain,Basic Books, New York.
Edelman, L. (1990). 'Legal environments and organizational governance', American Journal of Sociology,
95, 1401-1441.
Engel, D. (1980). 'Legal pluralism in an American community', AmericanBar FoundationResearch Journal,
980, 325.
Ewing, D. (1977). 'What business thinks about employee rights?' Harvard Business Review, September/
October, 81.
Felstiner, W. (1974). 'Influence of social organizations on dispute processing, Law and Society Review,
9, 63-94.
Felstiner, W., Abel, R. and Sarat, A. (1981). 'The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming,
blaming and claiming', Law and Society Review, 15, 631.
Foulkes, F. (1982). Personnel Policies in Large Non- UnionFirms, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Friedman, R. (1992). 'The culture of mediation: Private understandings in the context of public conflict'.
In: Kolb, D. M. and Bartunek, J. (Eds) Hidden Conflict in Organizations. UncoveringBehind-the-Scenes
Disputes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Galanter, M. (1974). 'Why the "Haves" come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change',
Law and Society Review, 9, Rev.95.
Galbraith, J. (1977). OrganizationDesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gilkey, R. W. and Greenhalgh, L. (1986). 'The role of personality in successful negotiations', Negotiation
Journal, 2, 245.
Gluckman, M. (1955). Customand Conflict in Africa, Blackwells, Oxford.
Goldberg, S., Green, E. and Sander, F. (1985). Dispute Resolution, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Goldman, P. and Van Houten, D. (1977). 'Managerial strategies and the worker: A marxist analysis
of bureaucracy', Sociological Quarterly, 18, 108-125.
Greenhouse, C. (1986). Praying for Justice: Faith, Order and Community in an American Town, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca.
Harrington, C. (1985). ShadowJustice: The Ideology and InstitutionalizationofAlternatives to Court, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Hearn, J., Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sheppard, P. and Burrell, G. (Eds) (1989). The Sexuality of Organization, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Hill, S. (1981). Competitionand Controlat Work,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hyman, R. (1978). 'Pluralism procedural consensus and collective bargaining', British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 16, 16-40.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Womenof the Corporation,Colophon Books, New York.
Karambayya, R. and Brett, J. (1989). 'Managers handling disputes: Third party roles and perceptions
of fairness', Academy of Management Journal, 32, 687-705.
Kerr, C. (1955). 'Industrial peace and the collective bargaining environment'. In: Golden, C. S. and Parker,
V. D. (Eds). IndustrialPeace Under Collective Bargaining, Harper and Row, New York.
Kidder, R. (1980-1981). 'The end of the road: Problems in the analysis of disputes', Law and Society
Review, 15, 673.
Kochan, T. (1980). Collective Bargainingand IndustrialRelations, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Kolb, D. (1983). The Mediators, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Kolb, D. (1987). 'Corporate ombudsman and organization conflict resolution', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 673-691.
Kolb, D. (1989a). 'Roles mediators play in different organizational settings'. In: Kressel, K. and Pruitt,
D. (Eds) The Mediation of Social Conflict,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kolb, D. M. (1989b). 'How existing procedures shape alternatives: The case of grievance mediation',
Journalof Dispute Resolution, Vol. 1989, 59-87.
Kolb, D. (1992). 'Women's work: peacemaking in organizations'. In: Kolb, D. M. and Bartunek, J. (Eds)
Hidden Conflictin Organizations:UncoveringBehind-the-ScenesDisputes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

322

D. M. KOLBAND L. L. PUTNAM

Kolb, D. M. and Bartunek, J. (1992). Hidden Conflict in Organizations. Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes

Disputes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Kolb, D. M. and Putnam, L. L. (1992) 'Introduction: The dialectics of disputing'. In: Kolb, D. M. and
Bartunek, J. (Eds) Hidden Conflict in Organizations. UncoveringBehind-the-ScenesDisputes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Kriesberg, L. (1973). The Sociology of Social Conflict, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kunda, G. (1991). 'Engineering culture: Culture and control in a high-tech organization'. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia.
Kunda, G. and Barley, S. (1988). 'Designing devotion'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association.
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organizationand Environment,Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lax, D. and Sebenius, J. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator, Free Press, New York.
Lewicki, R. and Sheppard, B. (1985). 'Choosing how to intervene: Factors influencing the use of process
and outcome control in third party dispute resolution', Journal of OccupationalBehavior, 6, 49-64.
Lewin, D. (1987). 'Dispute resolution in the non-union firm: A theoretical and empirical analysis', Journal
of ConflictResolution, 31, 465.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power. A Radical View, MacMillan, London.
March, J. G. and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations,Wiley, New York.
Marshall, J. (1984). WomenManagers. Travellingin a Male World,Wiley, Chichester, England.
Martin, J. (1992). 'The suppression of gender conflict in organizations'. In: Kolb, D. M. and Bartunek,
J. (Eds) Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes Disputes, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills.
Mather, L. and Yngvesson, B. (1980-1981). 'Language, audience and the transformation of disputes',
Law and Society Review, 15, 755.
Mechanic, D. (1962). 'Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations', Administrative
Science Quarterly,7, 349-364.
Merry, S. E. (1987). 'Disputing without culture (A review of Goldberg, Green and Sander: Dispute resolution)', HarvardLaw Review, 100, 2057.
Merry, S. E. and Silbey, S. S. (1984). 'What do plaintiffs want: Re-examining the concept of dispute',
Justice System Journal, 9, 151.
Miles, R. (1980). Macro OrganizationalBehavior, Goodyear, Santa Monica.
Miller, R. and Sarat, A. (1980-1981). 'Grievances, claims and disputes: Assessing the adversary culture',
Law and Society Review, 15, 525-566.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuringof Organizations,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). 'The organization as political arena', Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133-154.
Mitroff, I. I. and Mason, R. 0. (1981). Creating a Dialectical Social Science, D. Reidel Publishing,
Dordrecht, Holland.
Mnookin, R. and Kornhauser, L. (1979). 'Bargaining in the shadow of law', Yale Law Journal, 88, 950.
Morgan, G. (1981). 'The schismatic metaphor and its implications for organizational analysis', Organization
Studies, 2, 23-44.
Morrill, C. (1987). 'Vengeance among executives'. Unpublished Paper, University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ.
Morrill, C. (1992). 'The private ordering of professional relations'. In: Kolb, D. and Bartunek, J. (Eds)
Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes Disputes, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills.
Nader, L. (1965). 'The anthropological study of law', AmericanAnthropologist,2, 67.
Nader, L. and Todd, H. F. Jr. (Eds) (1978). The Disputing Process. Law in Ten Societies, Columbia
University Press, New York.
Neale, M. and Northcraft, G. (1989). 'Experience, expertise, and decision bias in negotiation: The role
of conceptualization'. In: Sheppard, B. H., Bazerman, M. A. and Lewicki, R. J. (Eds) Research on
Negotiation in Organizations,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York.
Pettigrew, A. (1973). The Politics of OrganizationalDecision-Making, Tavistock Publications, London.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978). The External Controlof Organizations,Harper and Row, New York.
Pondy, L. (1967). 'Organizational conflict: Concepts and models', Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,
296-320.

MULTIPLEFACESOF CONFLICTIN ORGANIZATIONS

323

Pruitt, D. (1981). Negotiating Behavior, Academic Press, New York.

Putnam, L. L. and Poole, M. S. (1987). 'Conflict and negotiation'. In: Jablin, F. M., Roberts, K. H.
and Porter, L. W. (Eds) Handbook of OrganizationalCommunication,Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Putnam, L. L. (1990). 'Reframing integrative and distributive bargaining: A process perspective'. In:
Sheppard, B., Bazerman, M. and Lewicki, R. (Eds) Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI
Press, Greenwich.
Rahim, A. and Bonoma T. V. (1979). 'Managing organization conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention', Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344.
Raiffa, H. (1982). Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Rawlins, W. R. (1989). 'A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions, and strategic challenge of communication in young adult friendships'. In: Communication Yearbook, Vol. 12, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 157-189.
Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Rowe, M. (1987). 'The corporate ombudsman', Negotiation Journal, 3,127.
Rubin, J. and Brown, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiations, Academic Press,
New York.
Salipante, P. F. and Fortado, B. (1988). 'Reciprocity, equity, and responses to unresolved conflict'. Unpublished Paper, Case Western Reserve University.
Sarat, A. (1988). 'The new formalism in disputing and dispute processing', Law and Society.
Schein, E. (1985). OrganizationalCultureand Leadership,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Selznick, P. (1970). Law, Society and IndividualJustice, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weaponsof the Weak, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Scott, W., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. (Eds) (1981). Handbookof OrganizationDesign, Oxford University
Press, London.
Sheppard, B. (1984). 'Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework'. In: Staw, B. M. and
Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Research in OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich.
Sheppard, B., Blumenfeld-Jones, K., Minton, J. and Hyder, E. (1990). 'Informal conflict intervention:
Advise and descent'. Unpublished.
Sheppard, B., Lewicki, R. J. and Minton, J. (1992). OrganizationalJustice, Lexington Books, New York.
Silbey, S. and Merry, S. (1987). 'The problems shape the process: Interpreting disputes in mediation
and court'. Prepared for Law and Society, June.
Silbey, S. and Sarat, A. (1988). 'Dispute processing in law and legal scholarship: From institutional critique
to the reconstitution of the judicial subject'. Institute for Legal Studies Working Paper, University
of Wisconsin Law School.
Smith, K. K. (1989). 'The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of splitting and
triangulation', AdministrativeScience Quarterly,34, 1-21.
Starr, J. and Yngvesson, B. (1975). 'Scarcity and disputing: Zeroing-in on compromise decisions', American
Ethnologist, 2, 553-566.
Thomas, K. (1976). 'Conflict and conflict management'. In: Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial
and OrganizationalPsychology, Rand McNally, New York, pp. 889-935.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizationsin Action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tichy, N. (1981). 'Networks in organizations'. In: Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. (Eds) Handbook of
OrganizationDesign, Oxford University Press, London.
Trice, H. M. (1984). 'Rites and ceremonials in organizational culture'. In: Bacharach, S. B. and Mitchell,
S. M. (Eds) Perspectives on OrganizationalSociology, Vol. 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. (1984). 'Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials',
Academy of Management Review, 9, 653.
Turner, V. (1957). Schism and Continuityin an African Society, University Press, Manchester, England.
Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York.
Ury, W., Brett, J. and Goldberg, S. (1988). Getting Disputes Resolved, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Van Maanen, J. (1992). 'Drinking our troubles away: Managing conflict in a British police agency'. In:
Kolb, D. M. and Bartunek, J. (Eds) Hidden Conflict in Organizations. Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes
Disputes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Walton, R. E. and Dutton, J. M. (1969). 'The management of interdepartmental conflict: A model and
review', AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 14, 73-84.

324

D. M. KOLBAND L. L. PUTNAM

Walton, R. E. and McKersie, R. B. (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw-Hill,

New York.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outlineof InterpretiveSociology, Bedminster, New York.
Westin, A. F. and Feliu, A. G. (1988). Resolving Employment Disputes Without Litigation, BNA,
Washington, DC.
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing,Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wrong, D. (1979). Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses, Harper and Row, New York.
Yngvesson, B. B. (1978). 'The atlantic fisherman'. In: Nader, L. and Todd, H. F. (Eds) The Disputing
Process: Law in Ten Societies, McGraw Hill, New York.
Yngvesson, B. and Mather, L. (1983). 'Courts, moots and the disputing process'. In: Boyum, E. and
Mather, L. (Eds) Empirical Theoriesof Courts, Longman, New York.
Ziegenfuss, J. T. (1988). OrganizationalTroubleshooters:Resolving Problems with Customersand Employees,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.