Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Project Management: A Study in Organizational Conflict
Author(s): Arthur G. Butler Jr.

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 84-101
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/255045
Accessed: 28-03-2019 20:03 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 121.52.146.145 on Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:03:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Project Management. A Study
in Organizational Conflict
ARTHUR G. BUTLER JR.
Georgia Southern College
Project management in functional organizations pro-

vides a fertile field for much-needed reexamination of
the presumption of dysfunctional conflict when managers
and employed professionals interact in organizations. Sys-
tematic analysis must indentify the foundations of human
conflict and determine the extent to which the implica-
tions of such conflict for organizational behavior are
functional or dysfunctional.
A search of the literature does not reveal a comprehens

of project management. Although this lack is understandabl
tively new application of a venerable managerial concept,l
use of project management by industry and government w
study. Clearly, the introduction of a new integrative compo
tional organization structures has important implications for o
behavior and involves significant departures from prevaili
managerial practice.
This conceptual overview is guided by a conviction that t
of project management in functional organizations produces
for inquiry into human behavior in organized settings. The an
on three interrelated questions:
1. What is lacking in modern functional organizations
decision makers to invoke the project management co
2. What is the connection, if any, between the adopti
management and the increasing numbers of professiona
in functional organizations?
Arthur G. Butler, Jr., is Associate Professor and Acting Head of the

Management, School of Business, Georgia Southern College, Statesboro, Ga.
This article was accepted for publication by the previous Editor, William
1 Some books have been written about project management, but they ar
ductory or descriptive in nature. With few exceptions, the articles which
the professional journals have reported either the results of broad-guag
interview searches for executive reaction to the concept, or general descr
strategies for accommodation of the project team within the organizati
84
1973 Volume 16, Number 1 85
3. To the extent that conflict has accompanied these two develop-

ments, what are its implications for the patterns of interaction
among managers and professional employees who are involved in
project work?
The paper presents a brief discussion of the project management con-

cept, some relevant aspects of the conflict phenomenon, and the model of
professionalism. These concepts then are employed in an analysis of the
behavioral consequences that are likely to emerge from the use of project
management to integrate interfunctional activities in traditional organiza-
tions. Hopefully, the analysis will enhance our understanding of this con-
flictive environment, clarify the notion that conflict in organizations may
have functional as well as dysfunctional effects (47), and provide insights
to guide further research in organizational behavior.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project management is designed to provide sustained, inte

integrated management of complex ventures. It involves: (a) the
substantial portion of total organizational resources on a spec
(b) highly interdependent specialized activities; and (c) rela
constraints with respect to cost, delivery, and performance of
uct. Unqualified success of the project often requires a brea
the technological state-of-the-art and pervasive trade-off de
seek whole-system optimization rather than suboptimizatio
of a single parameter or function.2
To achieve maximum intensification of managerial attenti
ect manager (PM) may be assigned full responsibility for th
of project objectives, subject only to an overall project plan
top management. At the other extreme, the PM may be ass
native (or simply monitoring) responsibility for the integratio
related activities, while existing patterns of functional resp
directive authority remain largely intact. In most instanc
required to subcontract with either the functional organizat
side concern for the specialized efforts required to accomp
tasks; e.g., design, development, production, test, support, and o
Conflict emerges from this secondary overlay of project a
responsibility. The PM tries to overcome organizational "inertia
ing existing patterns and relationships to serve the needs of hi
the functional executive (FE) tends to favor the status quo
less stable routine (27, 75). Although suggestions have been
the avoidance, suppression, disallowance, and even exploita
benefits of such conflict, there is no consensus concerning how
2 For development of project management in an environment of rapi

change and its underlying objectives based on "purposeful conflict," see Cleland and
King (17), Steiner and Ryan (74), Kast and Rosenzweig (40), and Peck and Scherer (56).
86 Academy of Management Journal March
project concept should be applied and how the attendant conflict is to

be handled.
The influx of professional employees into modern organizations and
the increased mobility of specialized individuals are significant considera-
tions for contemporary organizations (6, 80). The key members of a proj-
ect team are likely to be professional employees, perhaps representing
diverse disciplines, and it is often alleged that these individuals have values
and interests which differ from those of their employing organizations. It
does not appear to be sufficient, as some writers seem to suggest, that the
appropriate integrative solution is to accommodate these divergent values
and interests at whatever cost, simply because the specialized services pro-
vided by these professionals are crucial for organizational survival and
growth. The matter is certainly more complex than such an oversimpli-
fication suggests.
CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS
Conflict is a phenomenon that rarely is given adequate

the analysis of organizational behavior. Conflict is inevitable i
social systems we call organizations because they have limi
which to satisfy the divergent interests of their various publ
has been suggested that the essential nature of economic tr
bring order (not harmony) out of the conflicting interest
dependent behavior units (18), and that the manager who
no conflict in his organization is simply uninformed (32).
The failure of a theory of organizational behavior to "e
conflict often is cited as a deficiency in the formulation of t
criticism neglects the fact that conflict is ubiquitous, is not n
functional, and may be required to challenge people to p
encourage progress (19, 21, 54, 69, 70). Accordingly, i
appropriate for critics to investigate the foundations of perce
with a view to its constructive management rather than its e
Ideally, an appropriate objective of the "peacemaker" migh
that conflict "makes sense" (12) in a desirable state of affairs
some "optimum" amount of conflict of the "right" kind rath
to eliminate conflict entirely (13).
The functional aspects of social conflict do seem to have
by modem American behavioral scientists (8, 19, 20, 21),
mon understanding of conflict as "discord" and its opposit
operates against the acceptance of conflict as "good" (13).
focus seems to be largely concerned with the statics of m
sensual behavior and smoothly operating structures rather
flict and social dynamics. This bias is alleged to have limit
of such contributors to organization theory as Parsons, M
3 See, for example, Walton and Dutton (81), Walton, Dutton and Caf
(59), and Pondy (60).
berger and Dickson, and the followers of Lewin who have stressed "group
skills" and a general orientation toward conflict as a dysfunctional social
phenomenon (19).
There is more to conflict, of course, than its functionality in social
structures; its resolution may involve merely the stronger party overcoming
the weaker but more deserving party (32). Furthermore, since problem-
solving in conflictive situations often requires confrontation, and confronta-
tion can be intellectually and emotionally demanding, the search for con-
sensus may not be worth the price (11). Nevertheless, most organizational
decisions probably involve conflicting viewpoints which must be resolved
sufficiently to ensure continued participation in the collective effort. The
bureaucratic hierarchy has been viewed both as a conflict-resolution device
(12) and as a means of minimizing conflict through clarity of role specifica-
tion (84). It is also argued that active learning tends to occur when people
are motivated (i.e., not satisfied); therefore, dissatisfaction with work
problems does not necessarily lead to employee frustration (45).
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
A popular view of professionalism focuses on the s

accorded to certain occupational groups (e.g., doctors, law
sors) which is based on autonomy, authority of expertise
standards, collegial evaluation of performance, and servic
rather than personal interests (9, 31). Unqualified acceptanc
view of the professional ethic can be misleading (65, 66),
spite of suggestions that it is a contradiction in terms to insist
"control and direct" the work of professional employe
example, attempts to contrast professional and manage
frustrated by evidence that there are substantial differen
values professed by scientific and non-scientific professionals
of the latter group do not appear to differ drastically from s
agerial values (43, 53). It can be shown also that the profe
shares many principles with bureaucracy: universalistic st
tional specificity, affective neutrality to ensure rational judgm
achievement rather than by ascription, and general rather tha
(9). Furthermore, there is evidence that the alleged conflict
agerial and professional values may be based on an erroneo
by researchers that reality is revealed in what managers an
about their own and others' values; that is, while value dif
exist, they are much less significant than is generally beli
are similarities in value orientations that often are ignored
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT
Project or Functional Structure?

Most formal organizations tend to conform to the tr
archical model (2) and, although much has been said in
pative (team) management, the most optimistic view seems to be that

collegial models are evolving (23, 46, 76).4 Managers who adopt project
management seem to perceive that their functional structures cannot effec-
tively integrate multiple projects; the basic design is departmentation by
specialized function, and much effort is devoted to the establishment and
clarification of structured relationships among differentiated roles. Is it
reasonable to expect a functional official to subordinate a vested interest
in his own department sufficiently to enable him to provide single-purpose
attention to projects which involve important interfunctional contributions?
The literature of planned change amply describes the difficulties involved
in changing direction and accelerating pace in large, diverse, functional
structures (7).
Project management does provide a structural alternative for adapta-
tion to change and the coordination of significant new organizational
undertakings (6, 14, 68). It is apparent, for example, that performance
against the relatively short-term objectives of a project is more amenable
to evaluation than is the performance of large functional structures whose
goals are oriented to the longer term (73). Furthermore, many govern-
ment agencies require weapon-system developers to administer their con-
tractual responsibilities along project-management lines. It is not clear,
however, that behavioral considerations have been influential in managerial
decisions to adopt project management. One study of the attitude of pro-
fessional employees in four aerospace organizations concluded that
"although there may be persuasive justifications for the adoption of project
organizations, relief from human problems is not one of them" (61, p. 467).
A careful distinction must be made between the alleged inadequacies
of bureaucracy and the difficulties caused by human failure to apply bureau-
cratic principles effectively to ongoing organizational operations (6).
Moreover, the characteristics of bureaucracy which tend to produce intra-
personal conflict and frustration may not have effects so severe as to out-
weigh the advantages of control and economic integration afforded by the
bureaucratic structure (45). In any event, since the characteristics of
bureaucracy tend to persist with project management in functional organi-
zations, perhaps project management should be classified as a coping
mechanism rather than as a comprehensive response to the criticisms of
the bureaucratic model. Unfortunately, evidence is inadequate to permit
conclusive assessment of the relative effectiveness of project and non-project
organizations. Furthermore, criteria for organizational effectiveness are
inadequately developed and research has failed to confirm any consistent,
reliable, positive relationship between employee satisfaction and organiza-
tional performance, however either variable is measured (6, 37, 46).
4 See Davis (23) for four interconnected models of organizational behavior into which
theories of organization can be analyzed (autocratic, custodial, supportive, and collegial).
In addition to sources cited above, analysis necessarily includes examination of such works
as Taylor (78), Fayol (25), Scott (64), Gulick and Urwick (33), McGregor (50),
March and Simon (48), and many others.
In the early stages of a dynamic project, an organic structure may be

desirable. In time, however, the organic pattern tends to be overtaken by a
more mechanistic arrangement as the work is programmed and perform-
ance is controlled. Leadership as the "influential increment" becomes
crucial (42); the mere definition of project-authority relationships (i.e.,
the allocation of legitimate power) may not be sufficient to apportion
effective power as intended. In fact, a uniform leadership style may not
be optimal over the project life cycle during which the desired behavioral
mode tends to evolve from creative discovery, through innovative develop-
ment of relevant ideas, through programmed production and test of the
end product, and finally to introduction and support of the product in use.
The decision context also tends to change from one with a highly technical
bias to one in which value is placed increasingly on integrative trade-offs
involving time and cost as influential variables.
A Framework for Analysis
For a rather obvious reason, conflict associated with project manage-

ment is not easily separable from the more generalized conflict found in
functional organizations; the project team is a sub-structure of the larger
organization. Oversimplifying somewhat, however, the conflict specifically
associated with project management may be classified into two broad,
partly overlapping categories: (a) conflict associated with change; and (b)
conflict associated with the concentration of professionals of diverse dis-
ciplines in a more or less autonomous group effort which has a limited life.
These areas of conflict may be analyzed by considering both functional
and dysfunctional aspects of such conflict under various sets of possible
circumstances. This approach is unduly space-consuming, however, for
several reasons. First, PMs as well as FEs tend to differ in leadership style,
personality, and competence just as do individuals in any other group of
managers; second, the needs-satisfying capability of functional departments
may be substantial where professional employees are organized in groups
that are homogeneous with respect to specialty (i.e., they are permitted
to make the decisions which are closely related to their technical profes-
sional activities (43) and assignment to a project team may not serve the
professional's goal of autonomy); and third, project management may be
the type of stressful activity which evokes an authoritative approach to
team direction (46) (i.e., while rigid rules may not be prescribed to con-
trol the daily activities of individual professionals, equally constrained
behavior may result from tightly defined performance goals and milestone-
type control systems). In short, any attempt to compare the needs-satisfying
climate of the functional department and the project team depends greatly
on the perceived consequences of failure to conform to plan and whether
the probable costs of individualistic action are such as to deter members
of the project team from demonstrating their innovativeness, ingenuity, and
expertise in the service of project goals.
To minimize these expository difficulties, the following discussion

assumes that (a) the project team operates in an environment which is
relatively more collegial than the one which prevails in the functional
departments and (b) the PM subscribes to the principle of supportive lead-
ership (46), although he does not necessarily rely on participative proc-
esses for decision making. The probable effects of releasing these assump-
tions should be readily apparent as we consider some effects of project
management in functional organizations: changes in patterns of interaction,
power-status-influence relationships, and patterns for control; and the con-
flict associated with resource allocation, functional dependency, differential
incentives systems, and dual allegiance.
Changed Patterns of Interaction
The institution of project management in functional organizations tends

to violate established managerial practice with respect to: hierarchical
authority and responsibility; procedural arrangements and accommoda-
tions; departmentation specificity; incentive systems; unity of command and
direction; span of control; resource-allocation patterns; and establishment
of relative priorities. Performance goals tend to be assigned in terms of
interfunctional work flows and system requirements. Established work
groups are disrupted and staffing patterns tend to involve duplication. FEs
are forced into interaction in an environment which places a premium on
interdepartmental consensus, they are required to participate in the for-
ward planning of activities which previously may have been accomplished
unilaterally, and the increased participation of others in this latter area
tends to engender fears of invasion or absorption.
These revised patterns of interaction tend to produce continuing prob-
lems for both the PM and the FE: (a) the need to maintain communica-
tion in the presence of conflict; (b) the need to encourage creativeness
among professional employees in an environment which emphasizes pres-
sure to achieve specified results within visible and effective constraints; (c)
the need to preserve the professional employee's commitment to his exper-
tise when he becomes a member of a management team; (d) the need to
maintain affective neutrality in an environment where there are expectations
of individual loyalty to the project (department, profession); and (e) the
need to provide adequate organizational incentives for professional mem-
bers of the project team when the group has a limited (uncertain) life and
meaningful advancement opportunity is either non-existent or remote.
The behavior of employed professionals is a key variable in the analysis
of project management: the PM usually is a professionally trained indi-
vidual (63); FEs tend to be professionals in their respective fields; and
many of the individuals with whom the PM, FE, and project-team mem-
bers must interact are likely to be professionals. Thus, the interaction in
the project environment involves professionals of like discipline, profes-
sionals of dissimilar discipline, professionals and managers, managers and
managers, professionals who are "locals" and professionals who are "cos-
mopolitans." 5 and so on. Systematic research has not adequately explored
the attitudes of each of these groups toward the project concept.
The PM must organize a cohesive team of professionals of diverse dis-
ciplines who work for him in a limited sense, and who have their own
difficulties adjusting to new working relationships within the dynamic
project team, with their parent departments, and with other contributing
organizations. Problems of goal integration are likely to accompany these
professional employees to their new assignments, and their professional
reference groups tends to remain either in the functional departments or
with some external professional aggregations.
Conflict tends to emerge when professionals of diverse disciplines, or pro-
fessionals and nonprofessional technicians of related disciplines, are
required to work together as a team, especially when there are strong pres-
sures for consensus and team results (79). Managers may react to such
conflict by encouraging everyone to cooperate, but the "cooperation" of
professionals with non-colleagues often constitutes conflict. If the real value
of each profession to the organization is discernible only through such con-
flict, the role of the PM may consist of controlling the terms of conflict to
ensure each party has a fair hearing (32).
Dilution of Power, Status, Influence
Although arguments have been advanced predicting a "new concept of

power," based on professional collaboration in teamwork and reason rather
than "coercion and fear" (6), and although legitimate power may be
augmented or diluted by the operation of referent and expert influence,
the continued significance of legitimate power is evidenced by the continued
interorganizational struggle for it (42).
The power and status relationships of FEs tend to be diluted as they
experience a sort of role reversal: the PM is responsible for the "important"
work in the organization while the FEs retain responsibility for only the
supporting "hack work" (85). Intensified pressure for performance ema-
nates from a project team whose constituents previously may have been
subordinates in the functional structure. Where FEs perceive the PM to
be a staff official, their perception of power and status dilution has
precedent (5).
The source of the professional's authority is his strong sense of com-
petence, rather than an organizational office, and he tends to resist direc-
tion or the following of rules unless such prescriptions represent colleague
surveillance (32). It would appear, therefore, that assignment to project
5 Merton (51) used the terms "cosmopolitan" and "local" to describe two different kinds
of community leaders. Others have adopted the terms to differentiate, respectively, the
employed professional who is oriented toward his profession from the one who is oriented
toward his employing organization.
Among those who have explored the local-cosmopolitan phenomenon are Blau and
Scott (9), Hughes (36), Reissman (62), Caplow and McGee (15), Wilensky (86),
Marvick (49), Pelz (57), Gouldner (30), Lazarsfeld and Thielens (44).
teams would be welcomed by professional employees. On the other hand,

the integrative task of the project team requires a relatively strong com-
mitment to organizational goals, and the effective PM may be viewed by
his professional colleagues as having "sold out" to management. Further-
more, the scientific professional is reported to be reluctant to accept
responsibility for implementation activities associated with the application
of scientific knowledge to useful purposes, and this responsibility can
scarcely be avoided by PMs of developmental efforts.
Professionals argue that a limitation on autonomy suppresses creativity
and leads to individual dissatisfaction. One difficulty here lies in the fact
that the meaning of "creativity" varies depending on who uses the term
and for what purpose (63). It has been argued that creativity has become
largely a function of various measurement techniques used to study indi-
vidual creativity, and, although these tests have been made "reliable and
valid" by sophisticated statistical methods, they fail to define the concept of
creativeness; i.e., measures seem to have been developed, but "we do not
know what we are measuring" (39, p. 25). A vexing question persists:
How much creativity of what kind, and by whom, is desirable in terms of
organizational objectives?
A high degree of autonomy for the employed professional does not seem
to be associated empirically with high productivity. Given considerable
(not full) autonomy, the superior-subordinate relationship between the
professional and the manager is usually perceived as supportive (24, 34,
61). It has been suggested also that not all professionals need the same
degree of autonomy to function effectively. Professionals who give advice
based largely on an established body of knowledge need enough latitude to
give an honest opinion based on that expertise; however, those who wish
to "crawl along the frontiers of knowledge . . . searching for the new"
require great autonomy (16, p. 286).
It is reasonably apparent that most employed professionals who become
PMs or members of project teams gain influence. Not only have they
become associated with important tasks which can be identified readily with
the purposes of the larger organization, but they also tend to be more
closely associated with top-level decision makers within and outside the
organization. Similarly, it might be expected that professional employees
who remain in the functional departments will perceive a "loss" of influ-
ence. On the other hand, to the extent that basic research activities have
preceded project formation and are excluded from project scope, the
pressure for tangible results may have diminished sufficiently that more
rather than less autonomy accrues to researchers remaining in the func-
tional departments.
New Patterns for Control
Project management revises the work-initiation-and-control patterns in

the organization as the FE becomes the recipient of and respondent to
tasks assigned by the PM. Furthermore, the basic information necessary to

make functional decisions tends to be available to the PM in the form of
system specifications, while FEs receive their information in a more limited
perspective. The resultant pattern involves multiple supervision as the FE
receives assignments from, and his performance is evaluated by, an organi-
zational peer; nevertheless, he continues to be responsible to his formal
superior for the overall performance of his organizational function (61).
Project control systems tend to be more sophisticated than those to which
the FE has been accustomed. Such systems require the FE to predict and
report expected work difficulties in terms of milestones set by the PM,
rather than reporting to his formal superior difficulties selected from events
which have occurred. The FE also tends to be vulnerable to trade-off
decisions by the PM which may not accord his function the "appropria
weight in terms of functional optimization.
The professional's strong sense of competence tends to persist irresp
tive of non-colleague evaluation (32). To the extent that team manage
ment is employed in the project organization, the professional mem
appears to have gained some control over his individual performance.
the other hand, where the individual professional may have been one
many people of like discipline in the functional department, and colleg
control concepts were readily applicable, he may be the only (or a min
ity) representative of his discipline on the project team and collegial contr
over performance may be less acceptable to decision makers.
The professional notion of self-control is philosophically appealing, but,
given the nature of project management as a relatively short-term dev
for adaptation to important work requirements, positive control over per-
formance in pursuit of specific objectives tends to be emphasized. No o
enjoys being controlled excessively; however, professionals are suppo
to value recognition, reward by recognition presupposes evaluation b
someone against some kind of standard, and one aspect of control-me
urement-is essential to evaluation. Evaluation could be accomplished b
collegial methods; however, a pandora's box of difficulties is opened wh
an attempt is made to achieve evaluation of individual performance by
peer group of directly competing individuals. In any event, it has be
suggested that the collegial approach to control of performance has n
been universally successful (26, 32, 63), and this observation helps
explain managerial reluctance to change traditional control systems.
Conflict Over Resources
The PM is a potentially strong competitor for specialized organizational

resources because of the visibility and significance of his project. Project
management especially tends to dilute the personnel resources of the func-
tional departments as premium professional talent is selected (borrowed
or proselyted) for assignment to the project team. This action has a double
consequence: (a) the PM tends to use the FE's own people to define tasks
for and evaluate the performance of their parent functional organization;

and (b) the capability of the FE to respond to such work assignments is
curtailed by the loss of these same specialists.
The personnel management problems of the FE tend to be magnified by
important situational variables. Although his personnel usually continue
to rely upon him for administrative purposes, many of them actually work
exclusively for the PM. These individuals may be returned to the FE on
completion of the project, perhaps when his need for them is least, and
they may have difficulty in readjusting to the functionally oriented environ-
ment. They may, for example, have acquired levels of aspiration which the
departmental reward system is unable to satisfy. It also may happen that,
in pressing project-related work, members of the project team may alienate
managers in their parent functional organization. On the other hand, return
to the parent organization may be perceived by the professional as a satis-
fying respite or a temporary residence pending assignment to a new project.
Functional Dependency
The PM tends to be almost totally dependent on functional departments

for fulfillment of his assignment. Even if he does have unambiguous author-
ity, he and the members of his team usually must exercise this authority
across organizational boundaries, and these boundary positions are inher-
ently stressful (61, 85). On the other side, to the extent that project
authority is not clearly defined, individuals associated with project work
are vulnerable to role ambiguity and stress (38).
It is difficult to achieve clarity and balance in the apportionment of
authority and responsibility among PMs and FEs. Where the PM is granted
complete authority with respect to project-related work, the functional
department may become a passive supporting agency rather than a dynamic
force which maintains and enhances the specialized capability of the organ-
ization. Where the PM is supported unqualifiedly, the functional organiza-
tion may assume the dysfunctional characteristics of the "chronically
defeated group" and the overall decision-making process will be hampered
by the existence of "conflict traps" (11, 67). At the other extreme, the PM
may have so little authority, that he is ineffective as an integrative force,
although research suggests that the "marginal man" may perform creditably
in such a role (89). Organizations tend to seek some middle ground where
a reasonable trade-off can be made in the PM-FE relationship which will
maximize purposeful conflict while preserving the benefits of the basic
structure.
Conflict and Professional Incentives
Employed professionals have complained that executives emphasize

monetary rewards and ignore the more substantial motivational principles
of the professional model which rely on satisfaction of higher-level ego
needs.6 It might be expected that assignment to the highly visible project

team, with its obvious challenge to technical competence and its proximity
to decision makers, would enhance team-member satisfaction. The project
team is a management team, however, and the professional team member
may abandon the opportunity to exercise his professional skills directly
as he engages in integrative activities.
Individual recognition in the project environment may or may not satisfy
the professional team member, since he may prefer colleague acclaim to
managerial praise. Whether team members have an opportunity to partici-
pate in professional activities must be answered empirically, because the
stressful project environment tends to inhibit the opportunity to do research,
write, publish, and attend association meetings. Many individuals seem to
thrive in a pressureful environment; however, many may resent the moni-
toring type of integrative effort that is typical of most projects. Of
course, the importance of these effects will vary widely depending on
individual need.
On the other side, the establishment of a project would appear to reduce
the incentive of FEs and their professional employees. Recognition is
difficult to achieve when the primary work efforts of the department are
either routine or, if significant, are managed by a PM. In this connection,
the establishment of multiple projects complicates the assignment of rela-
tive priorities for work in the functional department, since the FE tends
to have limited (if any) control over the process whereby the relative
importance of the several projects is determined. The difficulty may be
exacerbated if relative priorities have not been established for all projects,
because PMs then tend to exert situational pressure in accordance with
their differential individual perceptions of urgency.
The implications of studies which suggest that employed professionals
tend to be frustrated and dissatisfied with their work cannot be ignored,
but, given the avowed values and interests of the professional, the results
of such research are almost predetermined. It might be appropriate here
to note the kind of reasoning which has produced a skeptical view of the
conclusion drawn from many studies of dissatisfaction in production-
oriented operations (10): most professionals do not express dissatisfaction
in their employment. Does employee satisfaction produce successful per-
formance, does the causal relationship run the other way, or is there some
other relationship between these variables? Neither the bureaucratic nor
the collegial approach seems to solve the problem, but it does appear that
a simple reversal of organizational arrangements will not necessarily pro-
duce a large proportion of satisfied and productive employees.
Conflicts of Allegiance
Research in union-management relations does not seem to confirm the
popular assumption that allegiance can be given to one institution
6 See, for example, Moore and Renck (52), Kornhauser (43), Baumgartel (4), Barnes
(3), and Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (35).
only (22). Because people function partially under incremental principles,

one need not "deduct" allegiance from management merely because one
"adds" allegiance to the union, and vice versa. Studies have shown that if
employee attitudes were strongly favorable toward the employer, they were
also strongly favorable toward the union, and the same was true with
respect to complaints (72). This conclusion seems to be consistent with
the concept of "partial inclusion" in role theory (1, 42).
These findings raise an interesting pair of questions: Is it necessarily
true that the professional who is strongly committed to his professional
reference group cannot have a similarly viable commitment to his employ-
ing organization? Is it possible that the expression of a low level of com-
mitment to the organization is associated with a similar attitude toward the
profession? In the latter instance, is it not likely that both institutions
are viewed instrumentally by the professional? It seems plausible to con-
clude that an individual cannot be totally loyal to one institution to the
exclusion of all others with which he is associated (13, 29).
Multiple orientations and multiple functions are demanded by the divi-
sion of labor in any complex social system (43). There are at least three
major functions to be performed if a profession is to contribute satisfac-
torily to the larger system: (a) the production of technical results, such
as scientific research; (b) the administration of conditions under which
technical results are produced; and (c) the application and communica-
tion of technical results. Cosmopolitans tend to be effective producers of
technical results; locals tend to assume administrative responsibilities; and
professional employees who are oriented to both the profession and the
organization are well equipped to facilitate the utilization of technical
results.
Some writers seem to suggest that the integrative (managerial) decision
is somehow less crucial than the technical (professional) decision (9, 55).
Perhaps the professional's search for knowledge or technical excellence
should be of more fundamental social importance than the constraining
integrative decision. It is not difficult, however, to demonstrate that where
the primary purpose of the organization is not the attainment of knowledge
or technical excellence as such, the managerial decision should prevail
where it favors action in support of organizational goals. This is simply an
argument in equity and has nothing to do with social priorities. Perhaps
the researcher should be employed elsewhere, in some kind of arrangement
where the search for knowledge enjoys primacy among collective goals, and
decisions can then be made solely in terms of the social significance of the
research effort.
The decision context is crucial. A narrow technical question may well
be handled without managerial intervention; however, the manager is
enjoined to intervene decisively when the question involves the enterprise
and its purposes. Both managers and professionals make decisions which
are not ratified by subsequent events, and this is perhaps why both man-
agers and specialists occupy important roles in the traditional organiza-

tional framework. The difficulty arises, however, in defining the role
requirements of those experts with sufficient specificity that qualified indi-
viduals can be selected as role incumbents. In the general case, there is
little assurance that the selection problem will be solved by relaxing role
specificity and hiring professionally trained individuals for an organic struc-
ture with the expectation that they will somehow "naturally" fill the neces-
sary roles as tasks evolve.
Some analysts reject the notion that dysfunctional conflict is inevitable
when professionals join bureaucracies because many professionals have
obviously learned to live in their employing organizations. Adaptive mech-
anisms are available which permit professionals to function effectively in
a more or less bureaucratic environment without abrogating their profes-
sional integrity and independence (80). Furthermore, there is little evi-
dence that the cosmopolitan-local dichotomy has any consistent association
with whether the individual professional makes a useful contribution to
either his profession or his employing organization. It could be argued that
commitment to one's skills might be sufficient for organizational purposes,
at least to the extent that managers are capable of defining the skill-mix
required to perform the tasks necessary to accomplish that larger purpose.
The proposal that organizations must adjust their work arrangements
and standards to accommodate professional standards is addressed to an
alleged dilemma: one institution must adjust its standards to those of the
other, but either way the the adjustment goes something suffers-either coor-
dination or professional standards of performance. More disturbing, per-
haps, is the notion implicit in this popular proposal: it seems to be unrea-
sonable to expect the professional to adjust to organizational standards.
The street seems to be one way.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that:

1. Project management has not been adequately concep
managerial device, and little empirical evidence has be
concerning the behavioral implications of its introd
functional structures.
2. While many conceptual explanations of the behavior

professionals exist, there is sufficient variation among t
ments to suggest that additional research is required
confident prediction of behavior in this area.
3. More needs to be known about the functions of confl
ized settings, and research tends to be biased in the direc
dysfunctional consequences.
4. Adequate management of conflict requires better un
of conflict processes.
The challenging question persists: How do we manage conflict in its

many forms in a constructive fashion? Perhaps there is something to be
said for managing people as they are, rather than devoting so much effort
to the normative question of changing people to what we think they ought
to be. If so, it would help to understand how much conflict of what kind
is enough, but not too much, and what sorts of conflict control devices can
be employed, where and how, to ensure that an appropriate level and mix
of non-pathological, constructive, purposeful conflict prevails in an
organization.
Six tentative propositions have been formulated which appear to warrant
further inquiry:
1. Project management tends to achieve intensified management of

complex, nonroutine organizational efforts, which, because of their
crucial significance to the organization, require positive assurance
of sustained, integrated administration of severe cost, delivery, and
performance constraints.
2. The high degree of single-purpose managerial attention desired for
these undertakings cannot be reasonably expected to emerge from
the traditional functional structure.
3. Decision-makers who introduce project management into func-

tional organizations tend to expect interpersonal, intergroup, and
interorganizational conflict as a consequence-but for a purpose.
4. The degree of "purposeful conflict" associated with project man-
agement tends to be constructive in mitigating the so-called "cul-
tural lag" in the managerial art--that is, serving a relatively short-
term purpose that is highly significant to the organization without
destroying the long-term viability of the supporting base for
ongoing organizational effort (i.e., the functional structure).
5. Professional employees of the organization have been party to, as
well as victims and beneficiaries of, the induced conflict.
6. New insight into the interpersonal relationships among managers
and professional employees may be gained by empirical analyses
of the behavioral patterns that emerge in these conflictive
environments.
While the first and third propositions seem plausible, and many man-
agers seem to have adopted project management for the reason suggested
by the second proposition, it is not altogether clear that the desired results
cannot be obtained within the functional structure. It is problematical
whether project management is the answer to the "cultural lag" and
whether a viable functional structure can be maintained over the long-term
with the establishment of multiple projects; therefore, the fourth proposi-
tion remains in question. The fifth proposition also seems plausible, in
1973 Volume 16, Number I 99
light of the motives usually attributed to professionals (e.g., the desire to

escape from bureaucracy); however, no justifiable claim can be made tha
project management has evolved in the precise manner suggested by thi
proposition or that the attribution of distinctive values to professionals has
significant validity. It is reasonably clear, however, that some professionals
have been victims and some have been beneficiaries of the project approach
to management.
The sixth proposition, hopefully, has been supported. The project man-
agement environment seems to offer better than average prospects for fruit-
ful behavioral research, in terms of either some derivatives of propositions 1
through 5 or models of organizational behavior in conflictive settings which
may include the variables discussed here.
REFERENCES
1. Allport, F. H. Institutional Behavior (Chapel Hill: University of Nor

1933).
2. Argyris, Chris. "How Tomorrow's Executives Will Make Decisions," in Keith Davis
and W. G. Scott (Eds.), Human Relations and Organizational Behavior: Readings and
Comments (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp. 190-198.
3. Barnes, L. B. "Organizational Systems and Engineering Groups," in C. D. Orth et al
(Eds.), Administering Research and Development (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin-Dorsey,
1964), pp. 72-85.
4. Baumgartel, Howard. "Leadership, Motivation, and Attitudes in Research Labora-
tories,"Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12 (1956), 24-31.
5. Belasco, J. A., and J. A. Alutto. "Line Staff Conflicts: Some Empirical Insights,"
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12 (1969), 469-477.
6. Bennis, W. G. Changing Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
7. Bennis, W. G., K. D. Benne, and Robert Chin. The Planning of Change, 2nd ed. (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
8. Bernard, Jessie. "Where is the Modern Sociology of Conflict?" American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 56 (1950), 11-16.
9. Blau, P. M., and W. R. Scott. Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962).
10. Blauner, Robert. "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society," in
Walter Galenson and S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Labor and Trade Unionism (New York:
Wiley, 1960), pp. 352-353.
11. Boulding, E. (Ed.), Conflict Management in Organizations (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Founda-
tion for Research on Human Behavior, 1961).
12. Boulding, K. E. "Opening Remarks" and "A Pure Theory of Conflict Applied to
Organizations," in E. Boulding (Ed.), Conflict Management in Organizations (Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961), pp. 1-2 and 43-51.
13. Boulding, K. E. Conflict and Defense (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).
14. Burns, Tom, and G. M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation (Chicago: Quad-
rangle Books, 1961).
15. Caplow, Theodore, and Reece McGee. The Academic Marketplace (New York: Basic
Books, 1958).
16. Clark, B. R. "Faculty Organization and Authority," in H. M. Vollmer and D. L. Mills
(Eds.), Professionalization (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 283-291.
17. Cleland, D. I., and W. R. King. Systems Analysis and Project Management (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1968).
18. Commons, J. R. Institutional Economics (New York: Macmillan, 1934).
19. Coser, L. A. The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956).
20. Crozier, M. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1964).
21. Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Cal.:
Stanford University Press, 1959).
22. Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work: The Dynamics of Organizational Behavior
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
23. Davis, Keith. "Evolving Models of Organizational Behavior," Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, Vol. 11 (1968), 27-38.
24. Engel, G. V. "Professional Autonomy and Bureaucratic Organization," Administrative

Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 (1970), 12-21.
25. Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management (London: Pitman, 1949).
26. Freidson, Eliot, and Buford Rhea. "Knowledge and Judgment in Professional Evalua-
tions," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1965), 107-124.
27. Gaddis, P. 0. "The Project Manager," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 (1959), 89-97.
28. Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. Awareness of Dying (Chicago: Aldine, 1965).
29. Gomberg, William. "The Trouble with Democratic Management," Transaction, Vol. 4
(1966), 30-36.
30. Gouldner, A. W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social
Roles," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 and 2 (1957-58), 281-306 and
444-480.
31. Greenwood, Ernest. "Attributes of a Profession," Social Work, Vol. 2 (1956), 44-55.
32. Gross, Edward. "When Occupations Meet: Professions in Trouble," in Keith Davis
and W. G. Scott (Eds.), Human Relations and Organizational Behavior: Readings
and Comments (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp. 69-83.
33. Gulick, L., and L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (New
York: Columbia University, 1937).
34. Hall, D. T., and E. E. Lawler, "Job Characteristics and Pressures and the Organiza-
tional Integration of Professionals," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 (1970),
271-281.
35. Herzbere, Frederick, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman. The Motivation to Work (New
York: Wiley, 1959).
36. Hughes, E. C. Men and Their Work (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958).
37. Kahn, R. L., F. C. Mann, and Stanley Seashore (Eds.), "Human Relations Research
in Large Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1956).
38. Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and R. A. Rosenthal. O,rganiza-
tional Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: Wiley, 1964).
39. Kaplan, Norman. "Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity," IRE Transactions
of the Professional Group on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-7 (1960), 24-30.
40. Kast, F. E., and J. E. Rosenzweig (Eds.), Science, Technology and Management (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).
41. Katz, Daniel. "Approaches to Managing Conflict," in E. Boulding (Ed.), Conflict
Management in Organizations (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Foundation for Research on Human
Behavior, 1961), pp. 11-20.
42. Katz, Daniel, and R. L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York:
Wiley, 1966).
43. Kornhauser, William. Scientists in Industry: Conflict and Accommodation (Berkeley:
University of California Press. 1962).
44. Lazarsfeld, P. F., and W. Thielens, Jr. The Academic Mind (Glencoe, Ill.: Free
Press, 1958).
45. Leavitt, H. J. Managerial Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).
46. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967).
47. Litterer, J. A. The Analysis of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1965).
48. March, James, and H. A. Simon. Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958).
49. Marvick, Dwaine. Career Perspectives in a Bureaucratic Setting (Ann Arbor: Institute
of Public Administration, University of Michigan, 1954).
50. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
51. Merton, R. K. Social Theory and Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957).
52. Moore, D. G., and Richard Renck. "The Professional Employee in Industry," Journal
of Business, Vol. 28 (1955), 58-66.
53. Oninion Research Corporation. The Conflict Between the Scientific Mind and the
Management Mind (Princeton, N. J.: ORC, 1959).
54. Paltrid~e. J. G. "Organizational Conflict in Academia," California Management Review,
Vol. 13 (1971), 85-94.
55. Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Process in Modern Societies (New York: Free Press,
1960).
56. Peck, M. J., and F. M. Scherer. The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic
Analysis (Boston: Harvard University, 1962).
57. Pelz, D. C. "Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research Organization,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 310-325.
58. Pelz, D. C. "Conditions for Innovation," Transaction, Vol. 2 (1965), 32-34.
59. Pondy, L. R. "Theory of Organizational Conflict," Academy of Management Jou,rnal,
Vol. 9 (1966), 246-256.
60. Pondy, L. R. (Ed.), "Conflict Within and Between Organizations," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1969).
1973 Volunme 16, Number I 101
61. Reeser, Clayton. "Some Potential Human Problems of the Proiect Form of Organi-
zation," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12 (1969), 459-467.
62. Reissman, Leonard. "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy," Social Forces,
Vol. 27 (1949), 305-310.
63. Roman, D. D. Research and Development Management (New York: Appleton-
Centurv-Crofts, 1968).
64. Scott, W. G. "Oreanization Theory: An Overview and Appraisal," Academy of Man-
agement Journal, Vol. 4 (1961), 7-26.
65. Shepard, H. A. "Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research," Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 295-309.
66. Shepard, H. A. "The Dual Hierarchy in Research," Research Management, Vol. 1
(1958), 177-187.
67. Shepard, H. A. "Responses to Situations of Competition and Conflict," in E. Boulding
(Ed.), Conflict Management in Organizations (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Foundation for
Research on Human Behavior, 1961), pp. 33-41.
68. Shepard, H. A. "Changing Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations in Organizations,"
in J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965),
pp. 1115-1143.
69. Simmel, Georg. trans. Kurt E. Wolff. Conflict (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955).
70. Smith, C. G. "A Comparative Analysis of Some Conditions and Consequences of
Intra-organizational conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11 (1966), 520-
530.
71. Smith, E. A. Social Welfare Principles and Concepts (New York: Association Press,
1965).
72. Stagner, Ross. "Dual Allegiance as a Problem in Modern Society," Pe,rsonnel Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 7 (1954), 41-47 and 70-71.
73. Starr, M. K. Management: A Modern Approach (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1971).
74. Steiner, G. A., and W. G. Ryan. Industrial Project Management (New York: Mac-
millan, 1968).
75. Stewart, J. M. "Making Project Management Work," Business Horizons, Vol. 8
(1965), 54-68.
76. Strauss, George. "Professionalism and Occupational Associations," Industrial Relations,
Vol. 2 (1963), 7-31.
77. Tagiuri, Renato. "Value Orientations of Managers and Scientists," in C. D. Orth et a
(Eds.), Administering Research and Development (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin-Dorsey,
1964), pp. 63-71.
78. Taylor, F. W. Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1947).
79. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in ActionI (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
80. Vollmer, H. M., and D. L. Mills (Eds.), Professionalization (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall. 1966).
81. Walton, R. E., and J. M. Dutton. "The Management of Interdepartmental Conflict:
A Model and Review," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1969), 73-84.
82. Walton, R. E., J. M. Dutton, and T. P. Cafferty. "Organizational Context and Inter-
departmental Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1969), 522-542.
83. Weber, G. H. "Conflicts Between Professional and Nonprofessional Personnel in
Institutional Delinquency Treatment," in H. M. Vollmer and D. L. Mills (Eds.),
Professionalization (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 251-261.
84. Weber, Max. trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. The Theory of Social and
Economic Organization (New York: Free Press, 1947).
85. Wilemon, D. L., and J. P. Cicero. "The Project Manager: Anomalies and Ambigu-
ities," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13 (1970), 269-282.
86. Wilensky, H. L. Intellectuals in Labor Unions (Glencoe, I111.: Free Press, 1956).
87. Withey, Stephen, and Daniel Katz. "The Social Psychology of Human Conflict," in
E. G. McNeil (Ed.), The Nature of Human Conflict (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 64-90.
88. Zander, Alvin, Arthur Cohen, and Ezra Stotland. "Average Attitudes of One Profes-
sional Group toward Another," in H. M. Vollmer and D. L. Mills (Eds.), Profes-
sionalization (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 237-243.
89. Ziller, R. C., B. J. Stark, and H. 0. Pruden. "Marginality and Integrative Manage-
ment Positions," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12 (1969), 487-495.

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Management: A Study in Organizational Conflict

Author(s): Arthur G. Butler Jr.

Project management in functional organizations pro-

A search of the literature does not reveal a comprehens

Arthur G. Butler, Jr., is Associate Professor and Acting Head of the

3. To the extent that conflict has accompanied these two develop-

The paper presents a brief discussion of the project management con-

Project management is designed to provide sustained, inte

2 For development of project management in an environment of rapi

project concept should be applied and how the attendant conflict is to

Conflict is a phenomenon that rarely is given adequate

A popular view of professionalism focuses on the s

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT

Project or Functional Structure?

pative (team) management, the most optimistic view seems to be that

In the early stages of a dynamic project, an organic structure may be

A Framework for Analysis

For a rather obvious reason, conflict associated with project manage-

To minimize these expository difficulties, the following discussion

Changed Patterns of Interaction

The institution of project management in functional organizations tends

Dilution of Power, Status, Influence

Although arguments have been advanced predicting a "new concept of

teams would be welcomed by professional employees. On the other hand,

New Patterns for Control

Project management revises the work-initiation-and-control patterns in

tasks assigned by the PM. Furthermore, the basic information necessary to

The PM is a potentially strong competitor for specialized organizational

for and evaluate the performance of their parent functional organization;

The PM tends to be almost totally dependent on functional departments

Conflict and Professional Incentives

Employed professionals have complained that executives emphasize

needs.6 It might be expected that assignment to the highly visible project

only (22). Because people function partially under incremental principles,

agers and specialists occupy important roles in the traditional organiza-

This study suggests that:

2. While many conceptual explanations of the behavior

The challenging question persists: How do we manage conflict in its

1. Project management tends to achieve intensified management of

3. Decision-makers who introduce project management into func-

light of the motives usually attributed to professionals (e.g., the desire to

1. Allport, F. H. Institutional Behavior (Chapel Hill: University of Nor

24. Engel, G. V. "Professional Autonomy and Bureaucratic Organization," Administrative

You might also like