THE CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF CONFLICT

David W. Johnson

INTRODUCTION

There can be no doubt that the area of conflict management and resolution is one of the most important areas in social psychology. Many of the difficulties individuals have in working and living together center around their destructive management or interpersonal conflicts. Within our society there are serious problems which may lead to a major armed conflict among ethnic groups and create difficulties between men and women, the older generation and the youth of our society, and advocates of the developing counterculture and protectors of the status quo. War between countries is still an ever-present reality.

In this century wars have grown more and more disastrous. World War I killed 12 million in battle. World War II cost 21 million lives in battle and 15 million more in air raids. One B-52 bomber mow carries in a normal payload more explosive power than all the shells and bombs of World War II. A third World War might kill all life aver large areas and conceivably make the whole planet uninhabitable. Even during nominal peace, tests and experiments with nuclear weapons have already distributed in the atmosphere, in plants, and in the bodies of animals radioactive iodine, strontium 90, and plutonium, imperiling present and future generations. President John F. Kennedy warned:

Today every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or madness.

In his Inaugural Address Kennedy spoke of two powerful groups of nations, "both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war." A similar theme was expressed by a Harvard psychologist, Henry A. Murray (1960,p. 12)

A war that no one wants, an utterly disgraceful end to man's long experiment on earth is a possibility we are facing every day. Events are hanging by a thread, depending on an accident, or some finger on a trigger, on a game of wits and tricks, or pride and saving faces.

As a species, man is standing in a maze of conflicts between nations, religions, ethnic groups, and generations, any one of which could start World War III. For the last twenty years or so man has had the technology and raw materials literally to destroy every living thing upon the earth. This technological capacity has made war and other forms of violence obsolete as a means of resolving conflicts. Yet the basic answer to conflict situations seems to be "kill" or "repress by force." If man as a species is to survive, he must learn how to handle conflicts constructively. Perhaps the most important question facing the world today is whether or not man can do so.

Imagine yourself to be a visitor from another planet, engaged in a field study of man. You are to make a prediction about how successful man will be in handling future conflicts. You survey his technological capacities for self-destruction, his stockpiles of weapons: you look at his past and present behavior in conflict situations, then you make a prediction about his survival. What would your prediction be: Lorenz (1963,(?)49) says the following:

An unprejudiced observer from another planet, looking upon man as he is today, in his hand the atom bomb, the product of his intelligence, in his heart the aggressive drive inherited from his anthropoid ancestors which this same intelligence cannot control, would not prophesy long life for the species.

We approach a crossroads at which we either educate ourselves, allies and enemies alike, in the nature of human behavior, using this knowledge to promote future behavior, or we continue along a road leading to the extinction of our species. And this, in the evolutionary view, will be about as significant as the extinction of the ichthyosaur.

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT

To understand the nature of conflicts it is necessary to define what a conflict is, to specify its source, and to evaluate its potential functional and dysfunctional consequences. A conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur (Deutsch 1969), and action which is incompatible with another action prevents, obstructs, interferes with, injures, or in some way makes that action less likely or less effective. The incompatible actions may originate in one person (interpersonal), or two or more groups (inter-group). A contract may arise from several different sources, some of which are (1) differences in information, beliefs, values, interests, or desires, (2) a scarcity of some resource such as money, power, time, space, or position, and (3) rivalries in which one person or group competes with another (Deutsch 1969).

EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT CONFLICT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Most of the time, a person's alternation is directed towards the failures to manage conflict constructively, not the successes. A strike makes that newspapers, while a peaceful settlement does not. A marriage that ends in divorce is often more attention-attracting than one which continues. Yet with all the apparent failures of constructive conflict management it should not be forgotten that many of our present procedures of conflict management are quite effective. Well over ten thousand labor-management agreements are made each year in the private sector of our economy with only a small percentage resulting in work stop-pages. This remarkable success ratio is often lost in the headlines of a major labor dispute and its resulting strike. Most interpersonal conflicts are managed successfully, and most international conflicts are settled without violence. The successful use of bargaining and negotiation as mechanisms of conflict management in our society is widespread.

A variety of legal procedures, joint problem-solving efforts, and the creation of third-party roles such as mediator, arbitrator, and ombudsman exist to effectively manage conflict. Yet there are failures. Without taking the obviously simpleminded position that it is not now possible to handle conflict constructively, we want to examine critically the current technology for conflict management.

It is inevitable that you will become involved in conflicts whenever you have a relationship with another person, this may be a personal relationship of a relationship required by a social system of which you are a part (such as a school or a job). A conflict-free relationship is probably a sigh that you a really have no relationship at all, not that you have a good relationship. The number of conflicts you and the other person have will vary from relationship to relationship. But even the most friendly relationships have times when conflicts appear.

Despite the inevitability of conflicts, there seems to be a general feeling in our society that conflicts are bad and should be avoided and that a good relationship is one in which there are no conflict. Many discussions of conflict cast it in the role of causing divorces, separations, psychological distress, violence, social disorder, and even war. There is a growing recognition however, that it is the failure of individuals to handle their conflicts in constructive ways which leads to the destruction of relationship's, not the mere presence of conflict. It is through the resolution of conflicts that most construct problem solving is initiated, when conflict is handled constructively, it can lead to increased closeness and a higher quality of relationship. Many individuals seek out conflicts through such activities as competitive sports and games, movies, plays, books and teasing. Conflicts are often of personal value, leading to personal change, growth, creativeness and curiosity. Learning how to manage your conflicts constructively may lead to increased self-confidence, greater willingness to take risks in increasing the quality of your relationships, and greater ability to handle stress and difficulty.

A superficial reading of many social psychological theories which emphasize tension reduction, dissonance reduction, good balance, and good form would seem to imply that the psychological utopia would be a conflict-free existence (Deutsch 1969). There are many social psychologists, however, who insist that conflict is basically constructive. Howell and Smith (1956) state that any good discussion among individuals is born in conflict and thrives on conflict, bur it must be conflict of ideas rather than personalities. Embank and Auer (1946) maintain that there is a need for differences of opinion in any effective problem-solving. Harnack and Fest (1964) state that cooperation does not mean absence of conflict; it does mean absence of conflict to block individuals and the vigorous presence of conflict intended to explore ideas. Cooley (1918) states that the more one thinks of it, the more he will see that conflict and cooperation are not separable things, but phases of one process which always involves something of both. Edward Ross (1920) stated that the good side of opposition is that is stimulates (How about the third of the opposite? JT). Simmel (1955) notes several positive functions of conflict (1) it tends to create order within the group by promotion structure, that is, some form of organized hierarchy, (2) at acts as a cohesive agent upon the group, (3) it may establish communication where before there was none, and (4) it may be an indication of group stability since the more intimate and secure the group, the more intense the conflict and the greater its frequency. Pettelle (1964) states that the proper function of conflict in a discussion is to encourage inquiry, to promote objectivity, and to sharpen analysis. It also stimulates interest and sincere and is a sign that interest and concern exist in the relationship. Deutsch (1971) states that his major assumption is that conflict is potentially of personal and social value.

The point of balance is very delicate between conflict that is managed so that it produces growth and conflict that is managed so that it produces disruption and incapacitation-Conflict in a social system which is handled destructively can lead to the destruction of the system, the absence of conflict in a social system can lead to stagnation.

Humanistic social psychologists believe that conflict is a natural and desirable part of any relationship. If one is involved with another person and concerned about the growth of the relationship conflicts are probably inevitable. Conflict is an inherent element in almost all social interactions. Simmell (1957, p. 195) for example, states: An absolutely... harmonious group...not only is empirically un-real, it could show no real life process. The society of saints which Dante sees in the Rose on Paradise may be like such a group, but it is without any change and development; whereas the holy assembly of Christ Fathers in Raphael's Disputa shows, it not actual conflict, at least a considerable differentiation of moods and direction of thought, whence flow all the vitality and the really organic structure of that group.

Conflict is a natural part of being alive and functioning in an environment which consists of other individuals.

Being involved with the environment, society, other persons, and oneself provides one with continuing sources of conflict which must be managed effectively in order to become an actualized, fulfilled, and joyful person.

There are three approaches for differentiating between a constructive and a destructive conflict. The first two involve criteria by which the outcomes of a conflict can be judged to be constructive or destructive. Thus Deutsch (1971) states that a conflict as productive consequences if the participants all are satisfied with their outcomes and feel that they have gained as a result of the conflict; a conflict has destructive consequences it the participants are dissatisfied with their outcomes and feel that they have lost as a result of the conflict; finally, a conflict whose outcomes are satisfying to all of the participants will be more constructive than one which is satisfying to some and dissatisfying to others. Deutsch's approach to declining constructive and destructive conflicts is to focus upon the psychological state of the participants after the conflict is resolved. Another approach is to specify criteria by which the outcomes of conflict can be labeled constructive or destructive, thus, if a conflict resulted in increased commitment to a relationship, in higher self-esteem by the participants, in a closer, more loving relationship, or in greater efficiency in work, the conflict is defined as constructive, while if the conflict resulted in disruption, alienation, separation, and decreased efficiency, it would be defined as destructive. The third approach to determining the constructiveness or destructiveness of a conflict to apply criteria to the process of handling the conflict before the outcomes are known. Thus, when a conflict becomes a cooperative problem-solving situation characterized by mutual understanding, accurate and complete communication and a trusting attitude, the conflict is defined as belong constructive, when a conflict becomes a win-lose situation characterized by misperceptions, inaccurate and incomplete communication, and distrustful attitudes, the conflict is defined as being destructive.

The Fifth Achievement

Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton

A great new challenge to the American way of conducting its national life is taking shape. Conformity with older patterns is breaking down. Yet creative definitions of new patterns are not forthcoming, or at best are coming at a snail's pace. Unless the challenge of finding new patterns that can serve to strengthen society is successfully met, some of the nation's most cherished human values may very well be sacrificed. If we can meet it, however, our deeply embedded beliefs as to the role of men in society may not only be reinforced but may find even richer and more extensive applications in the society of tomorrow.

What is this challenge? We widely acknowledge the objective of an open and free society based on individual responsibility and self-regulated participation by all in the conduct of national life. That men will differ in the ways they think and act is accepted as both inevitable and desirable. Indeed, this is one hallmark of an open society. Differences are intrinsically valuable. They provide the rich possibility that alternatives and options will be discovered for better and poorer ways of responding to any particular situation. Preserving the privilege of having and expressing differences increases our chances of finding "best" solutions to the many dilemmas that arise in living. They also add the spice of variety and give zest to human pursuits.

When it is possible for a man to make a choice form among several solutions, and when he can make this choice without infringing upon another man's freedom or requiring his cooperation, there is genuine autonomy. This is real freedom. When it is possible for a man to make a choice form among several solutions, and when he can make this choice without infringing upon another man's freedom or requiring his cooperation, there is genuine autonomy. This is real freedom.

When it is possible for a man to make a choice form among several solutions, and when he can make this choice without infringing upon another man's freedom or requiring his cooperation, there is genuine autonomy. This is real freedom.

But in many situations not every man can have his own personal solution. When cooperation and coordination are required in conducting national life--in government, business, the university, agencies of the community, the home, and so on --- differences that arise must find reconciliation. A solution must be agreed upon and embraced which can provide a pattern to which those involved are prepared to conform their behavior. Yet efforts to reconcile differences in order to achieve consensus-based patterns of conduct often only serve to promote difficulties. When disagreements as to sound bases for action can be successfully resolved, freedom can be retained and necessary solutions implemented. Dealing with the many and varied misunderstandings that are inevitable in a society dedicated to preserving the privilege of having and expressing differences is the challenge. As individuals, we find this hard to do. As members of organized groups, we appear to find it even more difficult.

FOUR CLASSICAL SOLUTIONS FOR RESOLVING CONFLICTS

In the conduct of society there are at least four major and different kinds of formal, structural arrangements which we rely on for resolving differences. They are the scientific method, politics, law, with its associated police powers; and organizational hierarchy.

Of undisputed value in finding the objective solution to which agreement can readily be given are the methods of science. A well-designed experiment confirms which of several alternatives is the most valid basis of explanation while simultaneously demonstrating the unacceptability of the remaining explanation.

Our political mechanisms are based on the one-man-one-vote approach to problem solving. This provides for the resolution of differences according to a weighting approach, and the basis is usually that the majority prevail. By this means, decisions can be made and actions taken even though differences may remain. Simply being outvoted, however, does not aid those on the losing side in changing their intellectual and emotional attitudes. While it ensures that a solution is chosen, the fact that it is often on a win-lose or a compromise basis may pose further problems when those who are outvoted resolve to be the winners of the fuller. Often the underlying disagreements are deepened.

Legal mechanisms apply only in resolving differences when questions of law are involved and other means of reaching agreement usually have met with failure With application of associated police powers, the use of force is available to back up legal mechanisms when law is violated. But this constitutes a far more severe solution to the problem. The ultimate failure of law which invites the use of military power is in effect a court of last resort.

Within society's formal institutions such as business, government, education, and the family organizational hierarchy, or rank, can and does permit the resolution of differences. The premise is that when a disagreement arises between any two persons of differing rank, the one of higher rank can impose a solution unilaterally based on his position. In the exercise of authority, suppression may also sacrifice the validity of a solution, since there is no intrinsic basis of truth in the idea that simply because a man is the boss of other men he is ordained with an inherent wisdom. While this arrangement provides a basis for avoiding indecision and impasse, it may and often does have the undesirable consequence of sacrificing the support of those to whom it is applied for the solution of the problem, to say nothing of its adverse effects on future creativity.

These classical solutions to dealing with differences--science, politics, law and hierarchy--represent real progress in learning to conduct the national life. Where it can be applied, scientific method provides a close to ideal basis for resolving differences. That politics, courts of justice, and organizational hierarchy, though more limited, are necessary is indisputable. But that they are being questioned and increasingly rejected is also indisputable. Even if they were not, none of these alone nor all of them together provide a sound and sufficient basis for the development of a truly problem-solving society.

WHAT IS THE FIFTH ACHIEVEMENT

There is another essential ingredient. It is sharply increased understanding by every man of the roots of conflict and the human skills of gaining the resolution of differences. The acquisition of such insight and skill by every man could provide a social foundation for reaching firm and sound understandings on a direct man-to-man basis of the inevitable disagreements that arise in conducting the national life. This kind of deepened skill in the direct resolution of differences could do much to provide a realistic prospect that the antagonisms, cleavages, or injustices real and imagined in society today can be reduced if not eliminated. It offers the promise that the sicknesses of alienation and apathy, the destructive aggressions, and the organization-man mentality can be healed.

HOW TO INCREASE SKILL IN MANAGING CONFLICT

Why do men rely on these other four approaches to conflict settlement while placing lower value on the resolution of differences in a direct, man-to-man way? One explanation for this might be that they do not hold in concert a conceptual basis for analyzing situations of disagreement and their causes. It should be said that conceptual understanding, while necessary for strengthening behavior, is clearly not in itself a sufficient basis for learning the skills of sound resolution of conflict. Personal entrapment from self-deception about one's motivations is too great. Insensitivity about one's behavior and the reactions of others to it is too extensive. To connect a conceptual analysis to one's own behavior and conduct in ways that permit insight and change seems to require sometime more in the way of personal learning.

Classroom learning methodologies that could enable men to gain insights regarding conflict and acquire skills for resolving it seem to be impoverished. To aid men in acquiring both the conceptual understanding for managing conflict and the skills to see their own reactions in situations to conflict, man-to-man feedback seems to be an essential condition. A variety of situations involving laboratory learning that permit this have been designed (Boch and Wyden 1969. Blake and Mouton 1968; Bradlord, Gibb, and Benne 1964; Schein and Bennis 1965). They set the stage for men to learn to face their differences and find creative and valid solutions to their problems.

Success in mastering this Fifth Achievement will undoubtedly require reconnection of the classroom in ways that permit the study of conflict as a set of concepts and the giving and receiving of feedback in ways that enable men to see how to strengthen their own capacities and skills for coping with it directly.

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT

This paper concentrates upon a first step toward this Fifth Achievement by presenting a conceptual basic for analyzing situations of conflict. The Conflict Grid [Figure in the text] is a way of identifying basic assumptions when men act in situations where differences are present, whether disagreement is openly expressed or silently present (Blake and Mouton 1964; Blake, Shepard, and Mouton 1964)

Whenever a man meets a situation of conflict, he has at least two basic considerations in mind. One of these is the people with whom he is in disagreement. Another is production of results, or getting a resolution to the disagreement. It is the amount and kind of emphasis he place on various combinations of each of these elements that determine his thinking in dealing with conflict.

Basis attitudes toward people and toward results are visualized on nine point scales. These form the Grid in the Figure.  The nine-point scale representing concern for producing a result provides the horizontal axis for the Grid. The phrase "concern for" does not show results produced but rather denotes the degree of emphasis in his thinking that the man places on getting results. The 1 end represents low concern, and the 9 represents the highest possible concern. The same applies on the vertical or concern-for-people axis. Considering that interactions of these two scales, there are 81 possible positions. Each describes an intersection between the two dimensions.

The following pages discuss strategies of managing conflict according to the five basic theories -- those appearing at the four corners and the center of the figure. When these basic styles are understood, and can predict for each how a man operating under that style is likely to handle conflict. There are eight additional important theories composed from various mixtures of these five, but basic issues of conflict resolution can be seen in dealing with these "pure" theories.

No one style is exclusively characteristic of one man in comparison with another, although one style may be dominant in a man's actions. Furthermore, even though one may be dominant for a time, it may be abandoned and replaced by another when the first has been ineffective in achieving resolution.

What are some of the ways of dealing with conflict?

Conflict can be controlled by overpowering it and suppressing one's adversary (9,1 in the lower right corner of the Grid). An ultimate expression of this is in the extremes of police power and military action. Extracting compliance by authority-obedience is possible when rank is present. The conflict can be cut off and suppressed in this way. "Yours not to question why!" When rank is not alias, a win-lose basis expresses the same set of assumptions. Winning for one's own position predominates over seeking valid solution.

Return to Love: New Insight:  See

Another strategy is to smooth conflict by cajolery, by letting a man know that with a little patience he will find that all is right (1,9 in the upper left corner). The assumption of sweetness and lift often leads to resolution by people's retracting from previously held positions, preferring personal acceptance to solution validity. This can promote accord and harmony, but it sacrifices conviction and insight into differences, while decreasing to likelihood of achieving valid solutions. Staying out of situations that provoke controversy or turning away topics that promote disagreement represents a set of assumptions about how to live in a conflict-free way (,1 in the lower left corner). Then one need not be stirred up even though the issue may need resolution. A Man can remain composed if he does not let himself be drawn into controversy; he avoids it by remaining neutral. This kind of "see no disagreement, hear no disagreement, and speak no disagreement" represents a withdrawal from social responsibility in a world where the resolution of differences is key to finding sound solution. It is the ultimate in alienation.

A third set of assumptions leads to a middle-of-the-road solution to differences through accommodation and adjustment. Disagreement is settled through bargaining a compromise solution (5,5). The assumptions underlying compromising at one's convictions are at the root of this approach. It means agreeing so as to be agreeable, even to sacrificing sound action" settling for what you can get rather than working to get what is sound in the light of the best available facts and data.

The mental attitude deigned the one-man-one-vote approach often leads to the endorsement of positions calculated to get majority support even though this means giving up a solution of deeper validity. The same assumptions often prevail behind the scenes in out-of-court settlements.

Outside the sphere of industrial management, solutions to major political and international problems of recent years provide classic examples of 5,5 splitting. One is the "separate but equal" approach to solving what is seen as the race problem. The cessation of hostilities in Korea by the establishment of the thirty-eighth parallel as a line of demarcation between North and South in the early Fifties is another. This set a precedent for setting up the "Demilitarized Zone" between North and South

Vietnam. The Berlin Wall is probably the most significant symbol of the East-West split. The 5,5 attitude is reflected daily by news reporters and commentators who quote 'unidentified but high-level sources' or hide their sources by attributing their facts merely to "usually reliable sources."

CONFLICT, CONFORMITY, AND CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

How does effective conflict management interrelate with other social processes of seemingly equal or greater significance in strengthening society? Indeed, it might be maintained that the challenge to society seen today is in nonconformity with its norms, rather than in faulty management of conflict.

In what ways are conflict and conformity interdependent (Blake and Mouton 1961)? men in everyday life do conform to the expectations of others and the exceptions of others and the patterns of their institutions. These readiness to conform reduces conflict and is what permits regularity, order, and predictability. To adhere to common norms provides a basis for organized effort. Form conformity with conventionalized social and organizational practices can come a sense of identification, belonging and esprit de corps. On the other hand, failure to conform may stir conflict with one's colleagues and associates so that the nonconformist is rejected indeed, anxiety about rejection can be so overwhelming that for many conformity becomes an end in itself in itself rather than a means to cooperation through interdependence. Under these circumstances the capacity to challenge outmoded traditions, precedents, and past practices is lost. With sound ways of approaching and resolving conflict, outmoded patterns can successfully be challenged and upgraded by replacement of them with agreements which themselves can promote problem solving and creativity. In this way, finding new and better ways to accomplish personal, organizational, national, and perhaps even international objectives becomes possible.

Just stimulating people to challenge and contest status quo conformities, however, is likely to do little more than provoke disagreement and controversy, increase polarization and ultimately end in win-lose, impasse, compromise, or chaos. Yet the status quo requirements must continuously be challenged in a problem-solving and creative way, not in a manner that pits man against man for see who can win or, even worse, in a way that ends in anarchy.

The Conflict Grid is useful in seeing the more subtle connections among conflict and conformity and creative problem solving. Conformity to the 9,1 authority-obedience demands that are involved in hierarchical rank is exemplified by the boss, teacher, or parent who gives the orders to subordinates., students, or children who are expected to obey. The Conflict Grid is useful in seeing the more subtle connections among conflict and conformity and creative problem solving. Conformity to the 9,1 authority-obedience demands that are involved in hierarchical rank is exemplified by the boss, teacher, or parent who gives the orders to subordinates., students, or children who are expected to obey. The exercise of initiative which produces differences is equivalent to insubordination. Conformity under 9,1 may produce the protocol of surface compliance, but the frustrations of those who are suppressed are often evident. Ways of striking back against the boss, teacher, or parent appear. Such acts may be open ones of resistance and rebellion or disguised ones of sabotage cheating or giving agreement without following through. Each of these in a certain sense involves reverse creativity, where ingenuity is exercised in attacking or "beating" the system. It is creativity in resentment of the system, not in support of it.

In another type of conformity, the rules of relationship are, "Don't say anything if you can't say something nice" (1,9). Togetherness, social intimacy, and warmth engendered by yielding one's convictions in the interests of personal acceptance are certainly objectionable solutions in a society where having and expressing differences is relied on as the basis for finding sound courses of action. It can produce a quorum of agreement but smother creative problem solving in sweetness and love. The kind of disagreement that might provoke resentment is avoided. The opportunity for creative problem solving to emerge is absent.

Another kind of conformity relates to adhering to the form and not to the substance of life. Here people conform by going through the motions expected of them, tread milling through the days, months, and years (1,1). In this way, survival is accomplished by being visible without being seen.

Organization-man conformity (5,5) entails positively embracing the status quo with minimum regard for the soundless of status quo requirements, Yet, even here, as new problems arise, differences appear and disagreements become evident . There are several kind of 5,5 actions that of shallow estimation may give the appearance of approaching problems from an altered, fresh, and original point of view. In another type of conformity, the rules of relationship are, "Don't say anything if you can't say something nice" (1,9). Togetherness, social intimacy, and warmth engendered by yielding one's convictions in the interests of personal acceptance are certainly objectionable solutions in a society where having and expressing differences is relied on as the basis for finding sound courses of action. It can produce a quorum of agreement but smother creative problem solving in sweetness and love. The kind of disagreement that might provoke resentment is avoided. The opportunity for creative problem solving to emerge is absent.

Another kind of conformity relates to adhering to the form and not to the substance of life. Here people conform by going through the motions expected of them, treadmilling through the days, months, and years (1,1). In this way, survival is accomplished by being visible without being seem.

Organization-man conformity (5,5) entails positively embracing the status quo with minimum regard for the soundless of status quo requirements, Yet, even here, as new problems arise, differences appear and disagreements become evident . There are several kind of 5,5 actions that of shallow estimation may give the appearance of approaching problems from an altered, fresh, and original point of view. Pseudo-creativity may be seen when new approaches, even though they constitute only small departures from the outmoded past, are recommended on the basis of their having been tried elsewhere. Under these circumstances a man is forwarding actions taken by others rather than promoting examination of actions on the basis of his own convictions. In this way, he can suggest, while avoiding the challenge of rejection of his own convictions. Deeper examination of 5,5 behavior leads to the conclusion that imitation rather that innovation is the rule.

In other instances, solutions which are proposed as compromise positions can give the impression of "flexibility' in thought. When adjustment and accommodation, backing and filling, twisting and turning, shifting and adapting take place in the spirit of compromise, the motivation behind them is usually to avoid interpersonal emotions resulting from confrontation. Behaving in this manner is a reaction to disagreement, and it mans that personal validity is being eroded.

Flexibility is a highly valued component in mature and effective behavior. But is it not contradictory to advocate flexibility on the one hand and to forewarn against compromise on the other? This question is important to clarify. Flexibility is a highly valued component in mature and effective behavior. But is it not contradictory to advocate flexibility on the one hand and to forewarn against compromise on the other? This question is important to clarify.

Flexibility calls for deliberate examination of options and alternatives. It means having back-up tactics that permit swift resolution of unforeseen circumstances, a climate that permits people to move back and forth and in and out from one situation to another, but based on facts, data, and logic of the situation as it unfolds. Flexibility calls for deliberate examination of options and alternatives. It means having back-up tactics that permit swift resolution of unforeseen circumstances, a climate that permits people to move back and forth and in and out from one situation to another, but based on facts, data, and logic of the situation as it unfolds. These are the characteristics of creative problem solving that permit gains to be made as opportunities arrive, that permit opportunities to be created, threats to be anticipated, and risks that result when people fail to react to be reduced.

Thus there are actions to adjust a difference to keep peace and actions to adjust to altered circumstances for better results. It is most important to distinguish between the two kinds, Flexibility for better results is likely to have a stamp of 9,9 an it, 'flexibility' to keep peace by avoiding clash of personalities is in the 5,5 area. One is intervening and promotes creativity. The other leads to the perpetuation of the organization-man mentality of status guo rigidities.

In the final analysis, conformity is to be valued. The problem is to ensure that the thinking of men conforms with sound purposes and premises. Conformity which means adherence to premise of human logic so that decisions reached are furthering growth capacity in sound and fundamental ways is what every individual might be expected to want. It is what man should want in the underpinnings of his daily interactions. It is conformity it this level that promotes the pursuit of creative and innovative solutions. Only when the values of a nation stimulate experimentation and promote a truly constructive attitude toward discover and innovation is the full potential from creative efforts available as a source of thrust for replacing outmoded status quo conformities with more problem-solving requirements (9,9).

But a 9,9 foundation of interdependence can build a strong basis for an open, problem-solving society in which men can have and express differences and yet be interrelated in ways that promote the mutual respect, common goals, and trust and understanding they must have to achieve results in ways that lead to personal gratification and maturity.

WHAT MEN WANT -- TRAN NATIONALLY

Though varying widely in their ways of actually dealing with conflict, studies show that leaders in the United States, Great Britain, the Middle and Far East all indicate that they would prefer the 9,9 approach of open confrontation as the soundest way of managing situations of conflict, particularly under examination (Mouton and Blake 1970). Though extremely difficult, it appears to be the soundest of several possible choices. This is not to imply that every decision should be made by a leader through calling a meeting or obtaining team agreement. Nor for a crisis situation does it imply that a leader should withhold exercising direction. But a 9,9 foundation of interdependence can build a strong basis for an open, problem-solving society in which men can have and express differences and yet be interrelated in ways that promote the mutual respect, common goals, and trust and understanding they must have to achieve results in ways that lead to personal gratification and maturity.

POSSIBILITIES OF THE FIFTH ACHIEVEMENT FOR STRENGTHENING SOCIETY

This challenge to America, the need for men to learn to confront outmoded status quo requirements and to manage to resultant conflict in such ways as to promote creative problem solving, promises much for the decades ahead, if we can meet and master it.

Consider for a moment the possibility of success in mastering this Fifth Achievement. What might it mean?

1. Enriched family life rather than the steady rise in the divorce rate.

2. Sounder child rearing evidenced in teenage youngster capable of expression and action in dealing in a problem - solving rather than a protest way with adults and the institutions of society who are capable of interacting in an equally sound way.

3. The conversion of academic environments from subject-oriented learning centers to ones that expand the capacity of individuals for contributing creatively to the evolving character of society.

4. The betterment of communities in ways that more fully serve human wants.

5. The more rapid integration of minorities into a more just society, with the reduction and eventual elimination of disenfranchised, alienated (ooooo?).

6. Fuller and more creative use of human energies in conducting the organizations that serve society.

7. A greater readiness to support and utilize science for approaching problems when evidence, facts, and data come to have an ever greater value as the bases for gaining insight.

8. A strengthening of politics by readiness to advocate positions on the basis of statesmanlike convictions rather than to adopt positions for political expediency.

9. Reliance on knowledge rather than rank in the resolution of differences and disagreements in organization situations.

10. A stronger basis for mind-meeting agreements rather than resorting to legal actions to force a resolution of disputes.

If erosion of social institutions not mot already become too great, all of these aims can perhaps be forwarded over time by our classical institutions for sitting conflicts. But surely men capable of resolving their conflicts directly would forward human progress with a dramatic thrust -- and on a far more fundamental and therefore enduring basis.

If this Fifth Achievement is to be realized, it is likely that greater use of the behavioral sciences may well lie the key to a more rewarding and progressive society in which men can share and evaluate their differences, learn from them, and use conflict as a stepping stone to the greater progress that is possible when differences can be resolve in a direct, fact-to-face way.

Will this challenge be met, or will the cherished freedom of having and expressing differences be sacrificed?