- Email: [email protected]
Cooperation and conflict between industrial sales and production
Cooperation and Conflict Between Industrial Sales and Production Donald A. Clare Donald G. Sanford This study exumines the potential ,for cooperation between the sales and production functions in the composite can and tube industry. The interfunctional communications perceptions, role-partner choices, and personal value attributions qf incumbents in four key positions are examined. While perceptions, choices, and attributions are found to interact dcjjerently in dijferent positions, the overall effect suggests a greater potential for conjlict und dominunce than ,for cooperation.
In industries which operate in relatively stable environments and experience slow rates of economic growth and technological change, the interdependence between sales and production is particularly critical [ 11. Competition is keen in such industries and firms must produce large volumes at low unit cost, while at the same time responding promptly to customer orders and delivery requests. Given that production and sales incumbents are apt to perceive the goals and activities of their own functions as more salient than those of their functional counterparts [2] and that the subgoals, technologies, and reward systems of production and sales tend to be dissimilar, the role relationships between them are often Address Comespondcncc to: Donald A. Glare. School of Public Administration. Florida Atlantic University, Boa Raton, FL 3343 I.
Irufu.srria/Murkc/in~Murqywr,, 13, I63- I69 ( 1984) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co.. Inc., 1984 52 Vanderbilt Ave.. New York, New York 10017
problematic [3]. Problems of scheduling and product quality are recurrent and tend to accentuate the potential for interfunctional tension [ 1, 41. This article focuses on four key sales and production positions in the composite can and tube manufacturing. The positions examined are those of plant manager (PM), assistant plant manager (APM), key production positions in this industry, and sales manager (SM) and salesperson (SP). Within this four-position network, the article addresses three basic research questions. First, what is the overall orientation of people in each position in terms of the perceived importance of the other positions in the network? Second, who do people in the different positions blame for perceived breakdowns in interfunctional communications? Third, how do job functions, role linkage, and perceptions of interfunctional communications affect the attribution of personal values among role partners? THE SURVEY Method The study was conducted with the assistance of the Composite Can and Tube Institute, a trade organization whose member firms generate approximately 85% of the 163 0019-8501/x4/%03.00
production of composite (i.e., nonmetal) cans, tubes, cores, cones, and related items in the United States. Firms in this industry are very cautious about sharing any information which might be of use to their competitors. Multiple questionnaires were mailed by the Institute to each of the corporate representatives of its member firms, usually top-level executives, with instructions for their distribution to the four positions involved. One hundred forty-six usable questionnaires were returned. Fifty-six were from PM’s, 16 from APM’s, 35 from SM’s and 39 from SP’s. Measures The first part of the questionnaire contained 30 statements designed to tap several dimensions of interfunctional role perceptions. Respondents were asked to use a four-point scale to describe how frequently they had experienced the outcomes described in each of the statements. The six statements reported on here dealt specifically with interfunctional communications. Statement numbers 4, 13, and 6 focused on the sales function: 4. Communication from sales was essential to any good relationship with production. 13. Sales people generally communicated openly their true feelings and thoughts about their work-related roles to production people. 6. Sales people listened and understood production’s point of view. Statements 5, 25, and IO were identical to those above except that the position of the words “sales” and “production” was reversed in each thus providing a focus on the production function. In this way it was possible to look both separately and collectively at the issues of importance of communications between functions, openness of communication styles, and receptivity to what was being communicated. It was also possible to identify perceptions of faulty interfunctional communications and to determine whether one particular function was seen as
DONALD A CLARE IS Professor of Admtntstration and Director of the School of Public Admtnistratton in the College of Business and Public Admtntstratton, Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton, Flonda. DONALD G SANFORD IS Associate Professor of Management Science in the College of Business and Public Admlnrstration, Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton, Florida.
164
responsible for the problem or whether fault was seen as being shared by both. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of a shortened version of the Rokeach Value Survey [.5]. First, respondents were asked to record their own position title (i.e., PM, APM, SM, or SP) and rank-order nine Terminal (life goal) values in terms of each value’s importance in their own life. On a separate page, they were asked to select from among the four positions studied the title of the most relevant person with whom they interacted and to rank-order the same nine values in terms of their perception of that person’s value orientations. This section yielded three types of information: role partner choices, self-attributed values and values attributed to role partners. Choice of Role Partners The issue of the choice of most relevant and, therefore, important role partners is a crucial one in this industry. If people focus exclusively on partners in their own function, it would suggest substantial organizational distance between functions. Increased organizational distance tends to result in decreased perceptions of interfunctional dependence [ 61. Such perceptions might well impede the possibility for the type of integrative, interfunctional solutions to organizational problems which firms in this industry are called upon repeatedly to make in order to remain competitive. Empirical evidence about the relative importance or attractiveness of sales versus production role partners is sparse and inclusive. Lawrence and Lorsch [I] found a general tendency for sales to have higher attributed influence than production in the metals container firms they studied. Landsberger [ 71 found that sales position incumbents in low conflict firms had slightly more interfunctional contacts than did production incumbents. whereas the opposite was the case in high conflict ones. Several studies of sales roles [tc- I 1 ] suggest that a number of variables, such as extra-organizational boundary-spanning activities and differential evaluation and reward systems. may act to moderate the within-function choices of superior-subordinate positions in this function. While the literature does not provide a basis for the development of specific hypotheses, general organization theory suggests that subordinates (i.e., APM and SP) would be more oriented to their functional superiors than to each other: that superiors (PM and SM) would be oriented to both their subordinates and to each other; and that diagonal choices (i.e., those involving both a func-
Cumulative Choices PM APM SM SP
= = = =
219 50 93 38
Pattern of Role Partner Choices. (Numbers FIGURE 1. are percentages rounded to the nearest whole percent. Since each position has 100% to allocate, the maximum possible cumulative choice for any one position is 400% and the minimum zero). tional crossover and a shift of hierarchical level) would be rare. As the data in Figure 1 illustrate, the first two suggestions are generally confirmed; the third is not. That is, subordinates frequently did select their superiors as partners; superiors did select each other and their subordinates (although the orientation of SM to PM is surprisingly strong and the SM to SP one surprisingly weak), but diagonal orientations between the PM and the SP also appear and are particularly strong on the SP to PM dimension. Overall, the PM position emerges as central. While this in itself is not a problem, it does suggest that whatever problems may exist as a result of perceived interfunctional communications breakdowns or interpersonal value differences, the PM will be a key to both the creation and solution of them. Also, the dominant position of the PM in the network suggests high informal power attached to the position. As Weinrauch and An-
other conflict [6]. However, functional groups, especially those lacking formal authority ties, tend to develop differential perceptions and orientations as well as different languages, belief systems, and ways of thinking [ 13-161. This differentiation tends to increase the organizational space [ 141 between functions. Increased distance in organizational space can lead to reduced communications [14] or reduced perceptions of functional dependence [6], either of which may lead to a deterioration of coordination. In a study of four sales and productions positions in six metals fabricating plants, Walton, Dutton, and Fitch [ 171 found that several firms had developed competitive methods for resolving interfunctional differences and that this tended to be associated with greater perceived differentiation between “we” and “they” (i.e., greater organizational space) and with dysfunctional forms of communication such as unflattering stereotypes and detrimental anecdotes. In a refinement of this larger study, Dutton and Walton [4] noted that the mutual lack of understanding which typified the joint decision-making process in one plant had led to communication delays and failures as well as systematic withholding of information. The importance of interfunctional communication between sales and production was strongly confirmed by the respondents in the present study. Fully 95% of them responded affirmatively to survey items 4 and 5. However, 91% of those who saw the need for it also indicated that the nature of interfunctional communications was faulty. By combining positive and negative responses to survey items 6, 10, 18, and 25, it was possible to identify which function was perceived as responsible for this breakdown. Responsibility was assigned as follows:
The dominant position of the plant manager suggests a high power position. derson [ 121 point out, such a situation can substantially affect all interfunctional transactions. In this case, the PM may be more inclined to exert dominance and less inclined to recognize the need for cooperation than would be the case in a more equally balanced choice pattern. Interfunctional
Communications
High functional interdependence requires communication, even under conditions of high role sender/focal
Sales was at fault when it was seen as not being open but production was, or when both functions were open and sales was the only one which lacked understanding. Production was at fault when it was seen as not being open but sales was, or when both functions were open and production was the only one which lacked understanding. 3. Both functions shared fault when neither was seen 165
TABLE 1 Perceptions Patterns<
of Responsibility
conflict high. This potential is examined in closer detail in the following section of personal values and value attributions.
for Faulty Communications
Function at Fault
Personal Values and Value Attributions N (%)
Sales N (%)
Both N (%)
Plant Manager
8 (16)
24 (3X)
IX (36)
Asst. Plant Mg.
I (Xl
Productron
Posttion
Sales Manager
I7 (50)
Sale\person All
x (2.5)
Position\
34 (17) = 3 I .66
x’ ~‘Excludc~ rcspondcnta who felt that two-way
6 (36)
6 (36)
Total N (%) so I3
( 100) ( 100)
2 (7)
IO (34)
29 (100)
5 (16)
I9 (SO)
32 (100)
37 (30)
53 (43)
I24
(100)
d.f. = 6 ,’ i .OOl
who chose “no
communication
fault”
pattern (N = IS) and those
was not important
tN = 7).
as open, or when both were open but neither was understanding. The outcome of this analysis is contained in Table 1. Several patterns are noteworthy. There is a clear tendency, for example, for people to blame their counterpart functions rather than their own. There is also a tendency for the weekly linked subordinate positions (APM and SP) to perceive shared blame more often than is the case with the strongly linked superior ones (PM and SM). Finally, those in the SP position, whose role partner choices are almost evenly divided between the SM and the PM, are less inclined to blame their counterpart function and more apt to place blame jointly on both functions than are those in any other position in the network.
The potential
for interfunctional is low.
These data were further analyzed to determine if the function of one’s role partner choice had any effect on blame for communication breakdowns. It did not. That is, regardless of whether a person selected a partner from sales or production, the tendency to blame one’s counterpart function persists, as do the other two patterns outlined above. Overall, the data suggest that the potential for interfunctional cooperation is low and that for interfunctional 166
Personal values are usually viewed as very basic and relatively stable elements of personality which intluence. among other things, one’s motivation, perception, evaluation, attitude formation, and behavior [ 18, 19, 20). Two studies illustrate the interaction of values and specific organizational properties or processes. Senger [ 2 1 ] found that general managers tended to give higher overall evaluations to subordinates whose values were similar to their own than to those with dissimilar values. Clare and Sanford [S] found substantial variations in the degree to which managers were able to accurately assess the values of their role-relevant others. Such fundamental elements of personality as personal values can be expected to have a major influence on interpersonal relationships. In particular, to the extent that people misperceive the values of their relevant role partners, the potential for cooperation is reduced and that for conflict increased. The self-attributed values of respondents in this study were surprisingly homogeneous. The composite rankorder value profile of sales incumbents was compared to that of production incumbents, within-function vertical and across-function horizontal comparisons were made. The profile of each position was compared to the combined profile of all other positions. In every case, the resulting correlation (rho) was significant (p<.Ol). This
cooperation
means that to be accurate, people should attribute similar values to their role partners as those they attributed to themselves. Attribution of dissimilar values would indicate an artificial creation of distance in the value space between self and partner. Such distance can only work to the detriment of the interpersonal relations of those involved and may well have a negative influence on the effectiveness of their firms. Table 2 presents a detailed analysis of the personal
TABLE 2 Personal Value Attributions
Value Attrubutlons by Function (N = 146)
The Effect of Attribution of Fault in Communication on Value Attributions (N = 124)
Value Attributions by Role Linkage (N = 146) -Prdn. at Fault
PRDNiPRDN ,661”
[-- PM/PM
,596
--- PM/APM ____
,879”
--- APMiPM
,817”
SALES/SALES ,179”
,550 ,783”
,938”
,825”
,867”
[none) ,583
(none) ~ ,425
(none) .03X
,092
- ,350
- ,408
,133
(none)
(none)
(none)
(none)
--- APM/SP [-- SMiSM
,133 ,358
(none) ,317
(none) (none)
.I83
I-- SMiSP
,746”
,642”
(none)
(none)
-- SPiSM
.613”
754”
-.717
,250 .750<’ ,933”
--- PMISP ____ --- APMiSM
-- SPISP r-- S”‘PM --- SMiAPM SALESiPRDN .7831’
,283
Both at Fault
(none) ,221
--- APMiAPM --- PMiSM
PRDNISALES .071
.08X
Sales at Fault
-.I75 ,517
-.267 ,238
(none) ,554
(none)
(none)
(now)
--- SPIPM
.75X<’
--- SPIAPM
,654”
,021” (none)
,783” (none)
,133
(none) ,675” I ,000”
< .05. b/J < .Ol. “/I
value space in the four-position network studied. The first column contains overall inter and intrafunctional correlations; the second, correlations of specific role partner linkages and the third, correlations of role partners as mediated by attributions of fault for communications breakdowns. As can be seen, even at the most general level, attribution by function, those in production who selected sales partners have distanced themselves from those partners by attributing dissimilar values to them. At the level of attributions by role linkage a somewhat different picture emerges: none of those who chose within-position partners (i.e., PM/PM, SM/SM, etc.) felt that their partners had values significantly similar to their own. Since the number of such choices was small, however, this does not appear problematic. The relationship between within-
function vertical partners (PMIAPM, APM/PM, etc.) seems sound, although the significance level for production partners is .Ol and those of sales partners only .05. More importantly, none of those in production who selected sales partners attributed similar values to them, while in sales only those in the SP position perceive their values to be significantly like those of their production partners. This artificial distance, particularly between the PM and SM, can be expected to have a negative effect on the interpersonal relationships between sales and production. This situation is somewhat ameliorated in the final set of correlations which deals with the effect of communications perceptions on value attributions. These data are not fully interpretable since 35% of the cells are empty, i.e., the role partner choices they represent were 167
not selected; and the mediation of attributed fault did not operate consistently in all cases. Still, the following overall generalizations appear in order: 1. Superiors
2.
3.
4. 5.
tend to see their own values as similar to those of their subordinates, regardless of which function is perceived to be at fault. Superiors tend to attribute greater similarity between their own values and those of their horizontal peers when their own function is at fault but not when their counterpart is. Subordinates tend to attribute greater similarity between their own values and those of superiors when their counterpart function is at fault but not when their own function is. PM’s tend to see their own values as dissimilar to those of SP’s, regardless of perceived fault. SP’s tend to see their own values as similar to those of PM’s, regardless of perceived fault.
SUMMARY This article has dealt with an empirical assessment of certain aspects of the interfunctional climate between sales and production in the composite can and tube industry, where the nature of this climate is critical. The overall picture which emerges is not a very positive one. Among the four key positions studied, the PM emerges as a central and potentially dominant force. The strength of the PM position comes partly from the strong interfunctional orientation within production and partly from the weak orientation within sales. While interfunctional communications are considered important, they are also viewed as being faulty, with many people tending to blame their counterpart function for the problem. The
communications problems. However, the distance between the PM and SM remains substantial. Given the very strong diagonal orientation of SP to the PM and the relatively weak vertical orientation between the SP and SM, the SM appears at risk of becoming isolated, thereby further increasing the potential for dominance on the part of the PM. RECOMMENDATIONS Two major problem areas require treatment: entations and interfunctional communications.
role ori-
Role Orientation The key to solving the potential dominance of the PM lies in strengthening the SM/SP linkage. People in both sales positions should be brought together to conduct a joint analysis of whether the decision making and other management systems have systematically isolated the SM from involvement in issues critical to the performance of SP’s. Corrective actions should be taken to increase the influence and involvement of the SM in the determination of the outcomes of such issues. In this way the SP will gain more respect for the SM and the PM will have to take the SM more seriously. Interfunctional
Communications
The strong relationship between attributions of fault for communications problems and the attributions of personal values suggests that treatment of the former may produce changes in the later. Such treatment will require further analysis. People in each function should be asked to write down incidents involving interfunctional communications in which they felt that their counterpart
Value differences and communication voids createproblems. data also show that while the self-attributed personal value profiles of all respondents are virtually identical, many people create artificial distances between themselves and their role partners by attributing dissimilar values to them. This tendency is offset somewhat when people consider their own function to be at fault for 168
function was not open, understanding or both. These incidents should be as specific as possible. An analysis of the incidents should help determine whether the problem is one of interfunctional stereotyping or has a basis in actual organizational issues, e.g.. scheduling, pricing, timeliness of deliveries, or quality control. If stereotyp-
ing is the problem, it can be dealt with through training programs which focus on the need for reality orientation as the basis for effective interfunctional communications. Organizational issues can best be dealt with by means of participative inter-functional problem solving [ 121. In either case, executives senior to the PM and SM will be critical to the solution of the problem. Given the generally negative interfunctional climate which presently exists, someone other than and senior to the positions in the network will have to help create a new climate in which improvements become possible and desirable. REFERENCES
of Some Similarities 26 (1980).
9. ,o,
Berkowitz,
and Differences,
E. N., Organizational
trial Marketing
Managemenr
Sloan Management
Perceptions
7, 31-42
of Sales Managers,
and Environment.
Dearborn, D. C., and Simon, H. A., Selective Perceptive: Departmental Identifications of Executives, Sociometry (1958).
A Note on the 21, 140- 143
Indus-
( 1978).
Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., and Walker, 0. C., Jr.. Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Salesforce, Journul cf Marketing Research
II.
13, 323-332
(1976).
Pruden. H. O., and Reese, R. M., Interorganization and the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial istrarive Science Quarter/y 17, 60 l-606 ( 1972).
Role-Set Relations Salesmen, Admin-
12. Weinrauch, J. D., and Anderson, R., Conflicts between Engineering and Marketing Units, industrial Marketing Management 11, 291-301 (1982). 13. Arrow, 1974.
K. J.. The Limits
of Organization.
W. W. Norton,
14. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L., The Social Psycho/o,p Wiley & Sons, New York. 1966.
Lawrence, P. R.. and Lorsch, J. W.. Organization Richard D. Irwin, Homewood. Illinois, 1969.
Revia~, 21, l5-
15. March, J. G., and Simon, New York, 1958. 16. Pfeffer, J., Power Wisconsin, 1981.
ofOr,qanixlions.
H. A.. Orpmizurions.
in Organizrrrions.
Pitman
New York, John
John Wiley & Sons, Publishing,
Marshfield.
Dutton, J. M., and Walton, R. E., Interdepartmental Contlict and Cooperation: Two Contrasting Studies, Human Organizurion, 207-220 (1966).
17. Walton, R. E.. Dutton, J. M., and Fitch, H. G., A Study of Conflict in Process, Structure, and Attitudes of Lateral Relationships. in Some Theories of’ Orgunization (Revised Edition), A. H. Rubenstein and C. J. Haberstroh, (Eds.), Irwin & Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. 1966, pp. 444-465.
Clare, D. A., and Sanford, D. G., Mapping Persona1 Value Space: A Study of Managers in Four Organizations, Human Relutions 32, 659-666
18. England. G. W., Personal Value Systems of American my r~Managrment Journal 10, 53-6X (1967).
(1979).
19. Feather.
Shapiro,
B. P., Can Marketing and Manufacturing Busines.s Review 55, lO4- I I4 ( 1977).
Coexist’?, Harvard
York.
N. T., VU/UPS in Education 1975.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek. J. D., and Rosenthal, R. A., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964.
20. Rokcach,
Landaberger,
21. Senger,
istrutive
Bagozzi,
H. A., The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy, 6, 299-332 (1966).
Admin-
Science Quurrerly
R. P., Salespeople
and Their Managers:
An Exploratory
Study
und Society.
Managers,
Acade-
The Fret Press. New
M., The Nature of Humun Values. The Free Press, New York,
1973. J.. Manager’s Perceptions of Subordinates’ Competence as a Function of Personal Value Orientations, Academy #Management Jourmr/ 14, 415-423 (1971).
169
In industries which operate in relatively stable environments and experience slow rates of economic growth and technological change, the interdependence between sales and production is particularly critical [ 11. Competition is keen in such industries and firms must produce large volumes at low unit cost, while at the same time responding promptly to customer orders and delivery requests. Given that production and sales incumbents are apt to perceive the goals and activities of their own functions as more salient than those of their functional counterparts [2] and that the subgoals, technologies, and reward systems of production and sales tend to be dissimilar, the role relationships between them are often Address Comespondcncc to: Donald A. Glare. School of Public Administration. Florida Atlantic University, Boa Raton, FL 3343 I.
Irufu.srria/Murkc/in~Murqywr,, 13, I63- I69 ( 1984) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co.. Inc., 1984 52 Vanderbilt Ave.. New York, New York 10017
problematic [3]. Problems of scheduling and product quality are recurrent and tend to accentuate the potential for interfunctional tension [ 1, 41. This article focuses on four key sales and production positions in the composite can and tube manufacturing. The positions examined are those of plant manager (PM), assistant plant manager (APM), key production positions in this industry, and sales manager (SM) and salesperson (SP). Within this four-position network, the article addresses three basic research questions. First, what is the overall orientation of people in each position in terms of the perceived importance of the other positions in the network? Second, who do people in the different positions blame for perceived breakdowns in interfunctional communications? Third, how do job functions, role linkage, and perceptions of interfunctional communications affect the attribution of personal values among role partners? THE SURVEY Method The study was conducted with the assistance of the Composite Can and Tube Institute, a trade organization whose member firms generate approximately 85% of the 163 0019-8501/x4/%03.00
production of composite (i.e., nonmetal) cans, tubes, cores, cones, and related items in the United States. Firms in this industry are very cautious about sharing any information which might be of use to their competitors. Multiple questionnaires were mailed by the Institute to each of the corporate representatives of its member firms, usually top-level executives, with instructions for their distribution to the four positions involved. One hundred forty-six usable questionnaires were returned. Fifty-six were from PM’s, 16 from APM’s, 35 from SM’s and 39 from SP’s. Measures The first part of the questionnaire contained 30 statements designed to tap several dimensions of interfunctional role perceptions. Respondents were asked to use a four-point scale to describe how frequently they had experienced the outcomes described in each of the statements. The six statements reported on here dealt specifically with interfunctional communications. Statement numbers 4, 13, and 6 focused on the sales function: 4. Communication from sales was essential to any good relationship with production. 13. Sales people generally communicated openly their true feelings and thoughts about their work-related roles to production people. 6. Sales people listened and understood production’s point of view. Statements 5, 25, and IO were identical to those above except that the position of the words “sales” and “production” was reversed in each thus providing a focus on the production function. In this way it was possible to look both separately and collectively at the issues of importance of communications between functions, openness of communication styles, and receptivity to what was being communicated. It was also possible to identify perceptions of faulty interfunctional communications and to determine whether one particular function was seen as
DONALD A CLARE IS Professor of Admtntstration and Director of the School of Public Admtnistratton in the College of Business and Public Admtntstratton, Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton, Flonda. DONALD G SANFORD IS Associate Professor of Management Science in the College of Business and Public Admlnrstration, Florida Atlantic University. Boca Raton, Florida.
164
responsible for the problem or whether fault was seen as being shared by both. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of a shortened version of the Rokeach Value Survey [.5]. First, respondents were asked to record their own position title (i.e., PM, APM, SM, or SP) and rank-order nine Terminal (life goal) values in terms of each value’s importance in their own life. On a separate page, they were asked to select from among the four positions studied the title of the most relevant person with whom they interacted and to rank-order the same nine values in terms of their perception of that person’s value orientations. This section yielded three types of information: role partner choices, self-attributed values and values attributed to role partners. Choice of Role Partners The issue of the choice of most relevant and, therefore, important role partners is a crucial one in this industry. If people focus exclusively on partners in their own function, it would suggest substantial organizational distance between functions. Increased organizational distance tends to result in decreased perceptions of interfunctional dependence [ 61. Such perceptions might well impede the possibility for the type of integrative, interfunctional solutions to organizational problems which firms in this industry are called upon repeatedly to make in order to remain competitive. Empirical evidence about the relative importance or attractiveness of sales versus production role partners is sparse and inclusive. Lawrence and Lorsch [I] found a general tendency for sales to have higher attributed influence than production in the metals container firms they studied. Landsberger [ 71 found that sales position incumbents in low conflict firms had slightly more interfunctional contacts than did production incumbents. whereas the opposite was the case in high conflict ones. Several studies of sales roles [tc- I 1 ] suggest that a number of variables, such as extra-organizational boundary-spanning activities and differential evaluation and reward systems. may act to moderate the within-function choices of superior-subordinate positions in this function. While the literature does not provide a basis for the development of specific hypotheses, general organization theory suggests that subordinates (i.e., APM and SP) would be more oriented to their functional superiors than to each other: that superiors (PM and SM) would be oriented to both their subordinates and to each other; and that diagonal choices (i.e., those involving both a func-
Cumulative Choices PM APM SM SP
= = = =
219 50 93 38
Pattern of Role Partner Choices. (Numbers FIGURE 1. are percentages rounded to the nearest whole percent. Since each position has 100% to allocate, the maximum possible cumulative choice for any one position is 400% and the minimum zero). tional crossover and a shift of hierarchical level) would be rare. As the data in Figure 1 illustrate, the first two suggestions are generally confirmed; the third is not. That is, subordinates frequently did select their superiors as partners; superiors did select each other and their subordinates (although the orientation of SM to PM is surprisingly strong and the SM to SP one surprisingly weak), but diagonal orientations between the PM and the SP also appear and are particularly strong on the SP to PM dimension. Overall, the PM position emerges as central. While this in itself is not a problem, it does suggest that whatever problems may exist as a result of perceived interfunctional communications breakdowns or interpersonal value differences, the PM will be a key to both the creation and solution of them. Also, the dominant position of the PM in the network suggests high informal power attached to the position. As Weinrauch and An-
other conflict [6]. However, functional groups, especially those lacking formal authority ties, tend to develop differential perceptions and orientations as well as different languages, belief systems, and ways of thinking [ 13-161. This differentiation tends to increase the organizational space [ 141 between functions. Increased distance in organizational space can lead to reduced communications [14] or reduced perceptions of functional dependence [6], either of which may lead to a deterioration of coordination. In a study of four sales and productions positions in six metals fabricating plants, Walton, Dutton, and Fitch [ 171 found that several firms had developed competitive methods for resolving interfunctional differences and that this tended to be associated with greater perceived differentiation between “we” and “they” (i.e., greater organizational space) and with dysfunctional forms of communication such as unflattering stereotypes and detrimental anecdotes. In a refinement of this larger study, Dutton and Walton [4] noted that the mutual lack of understanding which typified the joint decision-making process in one plant had led to communication delays and failures as well as systematic withholding of information. The importance of interfunctional communication between sales and production was strongly confirmed by the respondents in the present study. Fully 95% of them responded affirmatively to survey items 4 and 5. However, 91% of those who saw the need for it also indicated that the nature of interfunctional communications was faulty. By combining positive and negative responses to survey items 6, 10, 18, and 25, it was possible to identify which function was perceived as responsible for this breakdown. Responsibility was assigned as follows:
The dominant position of the plant manager suggests a high power position. derson [ 121 point out, such a situation can substantially affect all interfunctional transactions. In this case, the PM may be more inclined to exert dominance and less inclined to recognize the need for cooperation than would be the case in a more equally balanced choice pattern. Interfunctional
Communications
High functional interdependence requires communication, even under conditions of high role sender/focal
Sales was at fault when it was seen as not being open but production was, or when both functions were open and sales was the only one which lacked understanding. Production was at fault when it was seen as not being open but sales was, or when both functions were open and production was the only one which lacked understanding. 3. Both functions shared fault when neither was seen 165
TABLE 1 Perceptions Patterns<
of Responsibility
conflict high. This potential is examined in closer detail in the following section of personal values and value attributions.
for Faulty Communications
Function at Fault
Personal Values and Value Attributions N (%)
Sales N (%)
Both N (%)
Plant Manager
8 (16)
24 (3X)
IX (36)
Asst. Plant Mg.
I (Xl
Productron
Posttion
Sales Manager
I7 (50)
Sale\person All
x (2.5)
Position\
34 (17) = 3 I .66
x’ ~‘Excludc~ rcspondcnta who felt that two-way
6 (36)
6 (36)
Total N (%) so I3
( 100) ( 100)
2 (7)
IO (34)
29 (100)
5 (16)
I9 (SO)
32 (100)
37 (30)
53 (43)
I24
(100)
d.f. = 6 ,’ i .OOl
who chose “no
communication
fault”
pattern (N = IS) and those
was not important
tN = 7).
as open, or when both were open but neither was understanding. The outcome of this analysis is contained in Table 1. Several patterns are noteworthy. There is a clear tendency, for example, for people to blame their counterpart functions rather than their own. There is also a tendency for the weekly linked subordinate positions (APM and SP) to perceive shared blame more often than is the case with the strongly linked superior ones (PM and SM). Finally, those in the SP position, whose role partner choices are almost evenly divided between the SM and the PM, are less inclined to blame their counterpart function and more apt to place blame jointly on both functions than are those in any other position in the network.
The potential
for interfunctional is low.
These data were further analyzed to determine if the function of one’s role partner choice had any effect on blame for communication breakdowns. It did not. That is, regardless of whether a person selected a partner from sales or production, the tendency to blame one’s counterpart function persists, as do the other two patterns outlined above. Overall, the data suggest that the potential for interfunctional cooperation is low and that for interfunctional 166
Personal values are usually viewed as very basic and relatively stable elements of personality which intluence. among other things, one’s motivation, perception, evaluation, attitude formation, and behavior [ 18, 19, 20). Two studies illustrate the interaction of values and specific organizational properties or processes. Senger [ 2 1 ] found that general managers tended to give higher overall evaluations to subordinates whose values were similar to their own than to those with dissimilar values. Clare and Sanford [S] found substantial variations in the degree to which managers were able to accurately assess the values of their role-relevant others. Such fundamental elements of personality as personal values can be expected to have a major influence on interpersonal relationships. In particular, to the extent that people misperceive the values of their relevant role partners, the potential for cooperation is reduced and that for conflict increased. The self-attributed values of respondents in this study were surprisingly homogeneous. The composite rankorder value profile of sales incumbents was compared to that of production incumbents, within-function vertical and across-function horizontal comparisons were made. The profile of each position was compared to the combined profile of all other positions. In every case, the resulting correlation (rho) was significant (p<.Ol). This
cooperation
means that to be accurate, people should attribute similar values to their role partners as those they attributed to themselves. Attribution of dissimilar values would indicate an artificial creation of distance in the value space between self and partner. Such distance can only work to the detriment of the interpersonal relations of those involved and may well have a negative influence on the effectiveness of their firms. Table 2 presents a detailed analysis of the personal
TABLE 2 Personal Value Attributions
Value Attrubutlons by Function (N = 146)
The Effect of Attribution of Fault in Communication on Value Attributions (N = 124)
Value Attributions by Role Linkage (N = 146) -Prdn. at Fault
PRDNiPRDN ,661”
[-- PM/PM
,596
--- PM/APM ____
,879”
--- APMiPM
,817”
SALES/SALES ,179”
,550 ,783”
,938”
,825”
,867”
[none) ,583
(none) ~ ,425
(none) .03X
,092
- ,350
- ,408
,133
(none)
(none)
(none)
(none)
--- APM/SP [-- SMiSM
,133 ,358
(none) ,317
(none) (none)
.I83
I-- SMiSP
,746”
,642”
(none)
(none)
-- SPiSM
.613”
754”
-.717
,250 .750<’ ,933”
--- PMISP ____ --- APMiSM
-- SPISP r-- S”‘PM --- SMiAPM SALESiPRDN .7831’
,283
Both at Fault
(none) ,221
--- APMiAPM --- PMiSM
PRDNISALES .071
.08X
Sales at Fault
-.I75 ,517
-.267 ,238
(none) ,554
(none)
(none)
(now)
--- SPIPM
.75X<’
--- SPIAPM
,654”
,021” (none)
,783” (none)
,133
(none) ,675” I ,000”
< .05. b/J < .Ol. “/I
value space in the four-position network studied. The first column contains overall inter and intrafunctional correlations; the second, correlations of specific role partner linkages and the third, correlations of role partners as mediated by attributions of fault for communications breakdowns. As can be seen, even at the most general level, attribution by function, those in production who selected sales partners have distanced themselves from those partners by attributing dissimilar values to them. At the level of attributions by role linkage a somewhat different picture emerges: none of those who chose within-position partners (i.e., PM/PM, SM/SM, etc.) felt that their partners had values significantly similar to their own. Since the number of such choices was small, however, this does not appear problematic. The relationship between within-
function vertical partners (PMIAPM, APM/PM, etc.) seems sound, although the significance level for production partners is .Ol and those of sales partners only .05. More importantly, none of those in production who selected sales partners attributed similar values to them, while in sales only those in the SP position perceive their values to be significantly like those of their production partners. This artificial distance, particularly between the PM and SM, can be expected to have a negative effect on the interpersonal relationships between sales and production. This situation is somewhat ameliorated in the final set of correlations which deals with the effect of communications perceptions on value attributions. These data are not fully interpretable since 35% of the cells are empty, i.e., the role partner choices they represent were 167
not selected; and the mediation of attributed fault did not operate consistently in all cases. Still, the following overall generalizations appear in order: 1. Superiors
2.
3.
4. 5.
tend to see their own values as similar to those of their subordinates, regardless of which function is perceived to be at fault. Superiors tend to attribute greater similarity between their own values and those of their horizontal peers when their own function is at fault but not when their counterpart is. Subordinates tend to attribute greater similarity between their own values and those of superiors when their counterpart function is at fault but not when their own function is. PM’s tend to see their own values as dissimilar to those of SP’s, regardless of perceived fault. SP’s tend to see their own values as similar to those of PM’s, regardless of perceived fault.
SUMMARY This article has dealt with an empirical assessment of certain aspects of the interfunctional climate between sales and production in the composite can and tube industry, where the nature of this climate is critical. The overall picture which emerges is not a very positive one. Among the four key positions studied, the PM emerges as a central and potentially dominant force. The strength of the PM position comes partly from the strong interfunctional orientation within production and partly from the weak orientation within sales. While interfunctional communications are considered important, they are also viewed as being faulty, with many people tending to blame their counterpart function for the problem. The
communications problems. However, the distance between the PM and SM remains substantial. Given the very strong diagonal orientation of SP to the PM and the relatively weak vertical orientation between the SP and SM, the SM appears at risk of becoming isolated, thereby further increasing the potential for dominance on the part of the PM. RECOMMENDATIONS Two major problem areas require treatment: entations and interfunctional communications.
role ori-
Role Orientation The key to solving the potential dominance of the PM lies in strengthening the SM/SP linkage. People in both sales positions should be brought together to conduct a joint analysis of whether the decision making and other management systems have systematically isolated the SM from involvement in issues critical to the performance of SP’s. Corrective actions should be taken to increase the influence and involvement of the SM in the determination of the outcomes of such issues. In this way the SP will gain more respect for the SM and the PM will have to take the SM more seriously. Interfunctional
Communications
The strong relationship between attributions of fault for communications problems and the attributions of personal values suggests that treatment of the former may produce changes in the later. Such treatment will require further analysis. People in each function should be asked to write down incidents involving interfunctional communications in which they felt that their counterpart
Value differences and communication voids createproblems. data also show that while the self-attributed personal value profiles of all respondents are virtually identical, many people create artificial distances between themselves and their role partners by attributing dissimilar values to them. This tendency is offset somewhat when people consider their own function to be at fault for 168
function was not open, understanding or both. These incidents should be as specific as possible. An analysis of the incidents should help determine whether the problem is one of interfunctional stereotyping or has a basis in actual organizational issues, e.g.. scheduling, pricing, timeliness of deliveries, or quality control. If stereotyp-
ing is the problem, it can be dealt with through training programs which focus on the need for reality orientation as the basis for effective interfunctional communications. Organizational issues can best be dealt with by means of participative inter-functional problem solving [ 121. In either case, executives senior to the PM and SM will be critical to the solution of the problem. Given the generally negative interfunctional climate which presently exists, someone other than and senior to the positions in the network will have to help create a new climate in which improvements become possible and desirable. REFERENCES
of Some Similarities 26 (1980).
9. ,o,
Berkowitz,
and Differences,
E. N., Organizational
trial Marketing
Managemenr
Sloan Management
Perceptions
7, 31-42
of Sales Managers,
and Environment.
Dearborn, D. C., and Simon, H. A., Selective Perceptive: Departmental Identifications of Executives, Sociometry (1958).
A Note on the 21, 140- 143
Indus-
( 1978).
Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., and Walker, 0. C., Jr.. Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Salesforce, Journul cf Marketing Research
II.
13, 323-332
(1976).
Pruden. H. O., and Reese, R. M., Interorganization and the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial istrarive Science Quarter/y 17, 60 l-606 ( 1972).
Role-Set Relations Salesmen, Admin-
12. Weinrauch, J. D., and Anderson, R., Conflicts between Engineering and Marketing Units, industrial Marketing Management 11, 291-301 (1982). 13. Arrow, 1974.
K. J.. The Limits
of Organization.
W. W. Norton,
14. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L., The Social Psycho/o,p Wiley & Sons, New York. 1966.
Lawrence, P. R.. and Lorsch, J. W.. Organization Richard D. Irwin, Homewood. Illinois, 1969.
Revia~, 21, l5-
15. March, J. G., and Simon, New York, 1958. 16. Pfeffer, J., Power Wisconsin, 1981.
ofOr,qanixlions.
H. A.. Orpmizurions.
in Organizrrrions.
Pitman
New York, John
John Wiley & Sons, Publishing,
Marshfield.
Dutton, J. M., and Walton, R. E., Interdepartmental Contlict and Cooperation: Two Contrasting Studies, Human Organizurion, 207-220 (1966).
17. Walton, R. E.. Dutton, J. M., and Fitch, H. G., A Study of Conflict in Process, Structure, and Attitudes of Lateral Relationships. in Some Theories of’ Orgunization (Revised Edition), A. H. Rubenstein and C. J. Haberstroh, (Eds.), Irwin & Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. 1966, pp. 444-465.
Clare, D. A., and Sanford, D. G., Mapping Persona1 Value Space: A Study of Managers in Four Organizations, Human Relutions 32, 659-666
18. England. G. W., Personal Value Systems of American my r~Managrment Journal 10, 53-6X (1967).
(1979).
19. Feather.
Shapiro,
B. P., Can Marketing and Manufacturing Busines.s Review 55, lO4- I I4 ( 1977).
Coexist’?, Harvard
York.
N. T., VU/UPS in Education 1975.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek. J. D., and Rosenthal, R. A., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964.
20. Rokcach,
Landaberger,
21. Senger,
istrutive
Bagozzi,
H. A., The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy, 6, 299-332 (1966).
Admin-
Science Quurrerly
R. P., Salespeople
and Their Managers:
An Exploratory
Study
und Society.
Managers,
Acade-
The Fret Press. New
M., The Nature of Humun Values. The Free Press, New York,
1973. J.. Manager’s Perceptions of Subordinates’ Competence as a Function of Personal Value Orientations, Academy #Management Jourmr/ 14, 415-423 (1971).
169