See, for example: RenwickP. A., “Impact of Topic and Source of Disagreement on Conflict Management,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (December 1975), pp. 416–425; HerbertT. T., Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1976), pp. 354–360; and HungerJ. D.SternL. W., “An Assessment of the Functionality of the Super-ordinate Goal in Reducing Conflict,”Academy of Management Journal (December 1976), pp. 591–605.
4.
Robbins, op. cit., pp. 13–14.
5.
ThompsonV. A., “Bureaucracy and Innovation,”Administrative Science Quarterly (1965), pp. 1–20.
6.
JanisI. L., Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972).
7.
BinzenP.DaughenJ. R., Wreck of the Penn Central (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971).
8.
HallJ.WilliamsM. S., “A Comparison of Decision-Making Performances in Established and Ad Hoc Groups,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (February 1966), p. 217.
9.
HillR. E., “Interpersonal Compatibility and Work Group Performance Among Systems Analysts: An Empirical Study,”Proceedings of the 17th Annual Midwest Academy of Management Conference (Kent, Ohio: April, 1974), pp. 97–110.
10.
Several of these questions were adapted from the scoring table of the “Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument,” by ThomasK.KilmannR. H. (Tuxedo, N.Y.: XICOM, 1974).
11.
For example, in RobbinsS. P., Managing Organizational Conflict, it is argued that resolution and stimulation techniques should be contingent on the source of the conflict. The relationship of the resolution techniques used to the topics and sources of conflict was considered by Renwick in “Impact of Topic and Source of Disagreement on Conflict Management,” op. cit.
