CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

2. CONFLICT AT WORK THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS 67
the organization. This analytical framework yielded Gouldner’s wellknown
“patterns of industrial bureaucracy”—mock bureaucracy, representative
bureaucracy, and punishment-centered bureaucracy—that
remain widely applicable.
Mock bureaucracy referred to rules that no party in the organization had
a direct interest in and which were, therefore, rarely enforced and routinely
violated. Gouldner (1954, 1955) reported on the “no-smoking” rule
as one example of mock bureaucracy. Neither managers nor workers had
an interest in the prohibition against smoking. The rule was implemented
to satisfy the requirements of an external third party—the company insuring
the factory against fire damage.
Representative bureaucracy referred to rules that all parties had an interest
in and, consequently, were followed closely and were strongly enforced. In
the mining facilities, rules and regulations pertaining to safety practices
inside the mines were followed to the letter. Both workers and managers
had an interest in minimizing workplace injuries and accidents.
Punishment-centered bureaucracy denoted the rules that one group imposes
on another. Gouldner (1954, 1955) cited rules that penalize workers for
absenteeism and tardiness. Management imposed these rules on the workers.
Workers did not share a concern with these matters and believed they
had the right to occasionally miss a day of work or arrive late for personal
reasons. As would be expected, this form of bureaucracy generated the
greatest tension and conflict, and it was the most highly contested. We
also most closely associate this form with the term bureaucracy. People in
organizations who do not believe that those people on whom they depend
will fulfill their role obligations create punishment-centered bureaucratic
rules. Thus, a lack of trust generates these rules. Therefore, organizations
plagued by conflicting interests and low levels of trust are likely to be the
most bureaucratically punishment centered.
A third observation, also provided by Gouldner (1960), is worth noting;
that is, organizational harmony is often the result of selective nonenforcement
of bureaucratic rules. In the manufacturing facility, Gouldner
observed what he called an “indulgency pattern” under which managers
frequently allowed workers to bypass various rules and requirements.
Workers would routinely arrive at work late, take coffee breaks, and
socialize on the job in direct violation of written rules and procedures.
Gouldner’s explanation for nonenforcement by management highlighted
a critical factor facilitating organizational harmony—the ability of supervisors
to anticipate the consequences of rigid rule enforcement. The strident
exercise of supervisory authority would prompt worker resentment
and create workplace tension. This would make it difficult to gain the
cooperation of workers generally, and more specifically in assisting with
tasks that might occasionally lie outside their immediate job responsibility.
Therefore, supervisors settled on a posture of tolerance and indulgence.
Supervisors had to exercise flexibility with workers if they were
to expect flexibility from workers. This “norm of reciprocity” (Gouldner,