Business depends on group effort, andgroup effort depends on the . . .

INTERPERSONALUNDER WORLD

By Williavi C. Schutz

Although the businessman must spend a ma-jor part; of his time dealing with other people,he lias in the past had little help in overcomingthe difficulties that inevitably arise when peopleget together. The terms which have been usedto describe these problems — terms like "disci-plinary problems," "human relations troubles,"or the currently popular "communications diffi-eulties" — have served only to hide the realdifficulties, for they are descriptions of symptoms.The real causes must be sought at a deeperlevel; they lie in interpersonal relations.

In every meeting of two or more people twolevels of interaction occur. One is the overt —the play that is apparently being played. Theother is the covert — like a ballet going on inback of the performanee on the interpersonalstage — a subtle struggle for attention and status,for eontrol and influence, and for liking andwarmth. This ballet influences the performaneeby pushing the overt players into unusual pos-tures ant! making them say and do unusualthings. Thus, the objective, hardheaded execu-tive is overtly very resistant to a splendid ideasuggested by the brash young fellow who maysomeday replace him. But this example is muehtoo obvious. The ballet's effect on the actors isusually more subtle.

The importance of these covert factors canhardly be overestimated. The productivity ofany particular group is profoundly inffuencedby them. One of the main funetions of this ar-ticle is to attempt to dispel the idea that strong

AuTHOii's NOTE: For a fuller discussion of the pointscovered licrc, see my fortheoming book, FIRO: A Three-

interpersonal differences existing within a groupsetting can be effectively handled by ignoringthem — as if by the magie of closing your e\esyou could make problems go away. Rather, in-terpersonal problems must be understood anddeaJt with. If ignored, they are usually trans-formed so that they are not expressed direct-ly as open hostility but find their expressionthrough the task behsvior of the group. Failureto allow these group processes to work in a directfashion will decrease tlie group's productivity.

The types of bcha^•ior that result from inter-personal difficulties are various. In many casesit is difficult to reeognize their conneetion Avithinterpersonal relations in tbe work situation. Toillustrate some of these more subtle connec-tions, T shall deseribe several behaviors result-ing from, or symptomatie of, interpersonal diffi-culties, and then present a sampling of situationsgiving rise to these behaviors.

Behavioral SymptomsGenerally, interpersonal problems lead indi-

viduals to resist eaeh other and each other's in-fluence in various ovtit, but more often covert,ways. Eaeh individual may oppose, delay, failto support, or saboti^ge another. The mecha-nisms to be diseussed here are largely covert, orunconscious; the individual does these thingswithout being aware of his intention to resistor obstruct.

Communications ProblemsThese days "eommunications problems" are

greatly emphasized as a souree of industrial difli-

DUncnsionaJ Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, to be pub-iished Jn August 1958 by Eincbart & Company, Inc.

123

124 Hafvard Business R.eviexi'

culty. This emphasis, however, seems misplaeed.For one thing, problems which are eaused bycommunications are due not to inadequate eom-munication but to too adequate communication,since what is transmitted most accurately be-tween people is how they feel rather than whatthey say. Thus, if the boss really feels his re-search scientist is not very important, tbat feel-ing will be communicated to the scientist muehmore readily than any words that pass betweenthem. T or another thing, communications diffi-culties are primarily the result of interpersonaldiffieulties; they are seldom themseTv es a pri-mary cause of problems. Resisting another per-son is of"tcn accomplished through the mediumof eomuiunication. Thus:

«[ \ person may find it difficult to understandwhat is being said, or, sometimes, actually nothear what is said. Often a person feels eonftised; hejust eannot follow all the things that are going on.Another sign of resistance is incoherent speech,mumbling, not bothering to make a point clear, ornot making sure that the listener has heard. Allof these oceurrenees impede the process of verbalcommunication.

C Tlesistanee may also take the form of forget-ting to pick up a message that was to have beenleft on one's desk. Or one may forget to mail amemo or leave a message of importance to someoneelse; or the message may be garT)ied, ambiguous,of aetually contain a factual error. Similarly, mis-reading and misinterpretation increase greatly insituations of interpersonal strife.

Tndividually, tlicse behaviors aTT appear to besimpTe human failings and, indeed, in manycases may be only that. However, it is alwaysa good bet, especially when the incidents recur,that they are unconsciously motivated by in-terpersonal differences. In short, interpersonalproblems frequently find expression througb theobstruction of valid communication. Excessivecommunications problems can usually be inter-preted as a symptom of intcrpersonaT troubTe.

Loss of Motivation

Another expression of interpersonaT probTemsis tTie Toss of motivation to work on a task. Ininnumerable ways the individual s work beeomesineffective because he Tacks the desire to pro-duce. The accumuTation of many minor ineffi-cieneies amounts to the equivaTent of Tosing tTieserviees of a group member or a part of oneor more members' resources and abilities. Forexample:

C Tf a group member is supposed to look up someinformation which is needed for other members ofthe group to complete their work, he may just missgetting to the eompany library hefore Friday nightelosing time. Therefore he will have to wait overthe weekend and, in the meantime, hold up twoother people who are waiting for his report. Orperhaps some morning he will oversleep when heshoukl be at the eoinmitlee meeting.

« Another individual does only what is requiredof him and nothing extra. Tf he works from nineto five, he will leave promptly at five, for he eon-sidcrs his work a ehore, a task to be aceomplishedand nothing more. Tf something goes wrong be-cause of someone else's error. Tie wiTT make no effortto eonipensate for it. Tf Tie is not very busy andsomeone else needs a hand, he will not lend it.All in all, he will do only the very minimum re-quired to retain his job.

C Another manil;estation of a man's loss of moti-vation is a sudden realization that his outside in-terests and commitments are mueh stronger thanhe had thought when the group began. T e findsthat he has eonflictiiig meetings and other thingsto do whieh foree him to leave meetings early, toarrive late, or perhaps even to miss one. Or hemay have reports to write that prevent him fromcoming or working for this committee.

€ Chronic absenteeism or lateness is still an-other manifestation of an interpersonal difficulty.Perhaps a group member has an aetual illness orsome conmiitmeut at home that preveuts his com-ing; there may be any one of a large numljer ofreasons for his absence or lateness, many of whichare rational. But these situations may happen toooften to make the whole pattern a rational one. Tfa man has a meeting and the snow is heavy, it maybe that he eannot make the meeting beeause of thetraffie situation; hut if it were a meeting which hereally wanted to attend, the snow would not be agreat enough obstacle to prevent him from going.

€ Also, a los.s of motivation very frequently ex-presses itself in an actual feeling of physical tired-ness. Handling emotional and interpersonal diffi-culties is hard work, espeeially if it involves hold-ing baek eertain strong feelings. This work actu-ally makes the individual so tired that lie has greatdifficulty in bringing himself to work and to perse-vere on a job onee it is begun. It often happensthat an individual who feels completely exhaustedin one part of his work situation miraculously perksup when a new task comes along or when he goeshome to a more enjoyable activity. Again, this isnot a case of deliberate malingering. TTie personactually feels tired. When the conBict-inditeingsituation is removed, the tiredness lifts.

In general, what is happening is that a personsudden!)' fintis that other groups in which hisinterpersonal relations are happier are more im-portant than the present group, and hence hismotivation to work in tbe situation is reduced.\ man will seek a situation in which lie ishappiest and will attempt to avoid unpleasantsituations as far as possible. In other words,hv escapes the situation h)' withdrawing hisinvolvement.

Tndiscriminatc C)])p{)sili()ii

Another category of responses to interpersonaldifficulties involves direet blockage of aetion.This mecbanisin is often (|uite overt and con-scious, liut it likewise has many covert anduncoiiscicnis forms.

A symptom of a bad relationship is resistanceto suggestions. It uiay happen that an indivitlualin tbe group makes suggestions which are op-posctl hy atiother member regardless of theirmerit. As soon as the first member begins totalk, the seeond man •— because he feels hos-tile to the first — feels a surge of resistance orreluctance to acccjit anything he is going tohear. Tbis is, of eourse, not beneficial from thestandpoint of tbe group, because a very goodsuggestion may he rejected for irrelevant per-sonal reasons.

Tbe manner in vvbicTi such opposition ismanifested is often very subtle. Tf an antagonistmakes a suggestion, ratTier than use direct at-tack an individiuiT may say smilingly, "Thatsounds interesting, hut perhaps if we tried thisother method it would be even more effective."Another techni(jue is to postpone a decision onan oji|i()ne7it's suggestion. The parliamentaryprocedure of "tabling'' is one formal method, asare setting up investigating eommittees, consid-ering other matters first, offering amendments,or being unavailable for a meeting to decide onthe suggestion. Undoubtedly the experiencedhusinessuian can extend this list indefinitely.Again, it is important to note that, althoughthe techniques are often deliberately used, theyare perhaps used even more often without theuser's avvareness of his motivation.

Operational Problems

There are several ailments ol total groupfunctioning that are symptomatic of interper-sonal diffieulties. In most eases, difficulty inreaching decisions is a sure indication of inter-personal strife. This usually implies that the

Interpersonal Undaworld 125

group is unable to tell anybody no, sinee to makesuch a decision involves saying yes to the pro-ponents of another view. Compromises are thenput through that satisfy neither side and thatcertain]} do not accomplish the task as effec-tiveh as the group could under optimal c(jndi-tions. The compromise is really one betweenthe individuals who are in conflict, and not acompromise, essentially, of tbe issues of the case.

Another s\mpto!ii of interpersonal problemsin a group is incfficiert division of labor. If therelationships among the men are poor, difficul-ties arise as soon as it comes time to assign dif-ferent roles and di^ ide the labor so that the groupean operate more clfectively. Strongly held in-terpersonal feelings pievent the group from say-ing no to somehody who wants to he in aparticular position in the group hut vvhtmi theother mcjubers eonsitier unsuilcd to that posi-tion. This person may, therefore, he put intothe role anyway, to the detriment of the func-tioning of the group. For example:

In one groLip of marketing personnel ibere wasa man of clearly outstanding abilities regardingideas for the solution of tlie group's problem. Be-cause of his strength and dominance in the grouphe vvas aeceptetl as the leader. One result of thiswas that he was nol in a very good position to ex-press his ideas, since ;:s the leader he had to as-sume a conciliator role; thus, his virtue as a mem-ber who could contribute to the suhstanee of thegroup's task was diminished.

A second result was that he coukl not aet as agood administrator, that is, eouki not effectivelycoordinate the efforts of the other group memhers.So, hy not being able to say no to this person, or bynot being able to diseuss more openly the best uselo be made of his abilities, the group lost in twoverv important ways.

Another frequent instance of this difficulty isputting a man who is extremely capable in asubordinate role, with the result that his abili-ties cannot be utilized by the group. Thus:

In a diff'erent group the phejiomenon opposite tothe previous example occurred, resulting in equalinjury to the group's performance. T3ecause of per-sonal hostility from several other members themost competent man vvas relegated to the role ofsecretary. There his time was consumed takingjninutes, and his stellar abilities were wasted.

In general, then, ability to jilace men prop-erly within a group is one indication of goodbasic interpersonal relations, while inahility isa sign that there must be something wrong

126 Harvard Busine.ss Preview

among the people that prevents them from usingtheir resources optimally.

Task Distortions

Interpersonal difficulties are almost invariabh'refleeted in a group's performanee on its task,although at times these effects arc more obviousthan at others. Here are three examples of in-terpersonal problems heing expressed directly inwork hehavior, taken from groups of eight grad-uate students working on aetual industrial prob-lems at the Harvard Business School:

fi One of those groups was working on the prob-lem of bringing out a new product for a majormanufacturer. The members developed a market-ing strategy for this produet in which the big stresswas on the image tliat the product would presentto consumers. In fact, they put so mueh stress onthe image that they neglected certain other factors.

My observations of this group in operation indi-cated the reason for the inefficient emphasis. Fromthe beginning certain men were assigned by thegroup, not to the actual task, but to the presenta-tion to be made to the eompany at the completionof the work. Some of them became very concernedwith the impression they would make — in factmore ct)ncerned with this than with the impressionthe product would make. Therefore, they uneon-sciously sought the aspect of their assigned taskwhich vvouki allow them to work on their inter-personal problem and anxiety and concentrated onit to the consecjuent neglect of other factors whiehwere also important.

II Another group evolved a marketing strategyfor bringing out a family of products. On examina-tion, it appeared that this product family was notparticularly well integrated. Tn addition, there vvasreason to helieve that a single product would bemore effective.

From interviews with the individual membersand from observations of their working as a group,it became clear that the family of products vvasa compromise solution. Certain memhers of thegroup had wanted one product; others Tiad wanteda different one. Tnstead of trying to w ork out thesedifferences of opinion in terms of marketing con-siderations, the group decided implicitly to bringout the whole family as a solution to their inter-personal problem.

•I Still another group devised a marketing solu-tion with a heavy emphasis on a decentralized dis-tribution system. Tiut the company representativesimmediately wondered about the wisdom of usingsuch autonomous distributors, since company-hireddistributors should lead to more profits. The groupwas at a loss to justify its own suggestion.

/Vgaiu, observations of tbe group throughout theterm indicated a possible reason. 'T'he group hadhad a serious interpersonal blowup at one point,and the members had decided to go their separateways. The result of this tieeision vvas autonomousoperation hy the individual members of the group.Apparently tlie group members were luicoiiseiouslyinfluenced by the faet that their group coukl oper-ate more effectively as autonomous individuals.

Interpersonal problems are often worked outon some aspect of the task that closely approxi-mates the relationship which is of concern tothe group (eompany to dealer, company to con-sumer, and so forth). In this way the tensionsgenerated by the interpersonal problems can berelieved by symbolically displacing them intothe work situation. Ihe drawback of this phe-nomenon is that, although it appears tbat thegroup is very task-oriented, its work may in facthe quite inappropriate and inefficient at manypoints.

Common Issues

W e have looked at some of the behaviorswhich may be eonsidered symptomatic of inade-quate interpersonal relations. Certain problemsituations that occur In group and interperson-al dealings vvith great frequency generate thesesymptoms. As an illustration of the nature of theproblems and some of their vicissitudes, I shallnow discuss three ol" them.

Consensus for Decision

In every group, sooner or later, a decision-making apparatus must he agreed on. Whetherit he consensus, majority rule, luianimity, or anyother method, there must he some modus oper-andi for the grouj) to make decisions. By con-sensus 1 mean, here, that everyone in the groupis agreed tbat a certain course of action is bestfor the group, regardless of whether or not heindividually agrees with it. Ordinarily, if thegroup does not have consensus and a deeisiongoes through, the group pays. For instance:

Let us suppose that a group, perhaps a com-mittee, has gotten together with the task of decid-ing a particular issue. The issue has come to avote, ant! the vote is fairly decisive, say six to two.The two people in the minority, however, do notreally t'eel that they have had an opportunity toexpress their feelings about the issue, Althoughthey are committetl to go along with the deci-sion, thev have an Inner reluctance to do so. This

covert reluctance may manifest itselj" in any of thesunjitoms alreatly mentioned. Perhaps the mostcommon svinptom is a loss of interest, althoughthis situation could be expected to give rise to anyof theni-

I h e (juestion of consensus is central in de-cision jiiaking. in a deeper sense, consensusmeans that everyone in a group feels that thegroup undcrstantis his position and his feelingsabout il; and he feels, then, that the groupshoukt take a particular course of action eventhough he does not pcrsonaliv' agree. If theindividual is not allowed to voice bis own feel-ings and reasons for voting against the particu-lar issue, he will, at least unconsciously, resistthe efficient functioning of the group from thatpoint on. If consensus is not required, dceisionscan often he made more quickly (for example,hy majority rule or bv' fiat), but delay will prob-ably result, due to the unacknowledged mem-bers hav ing various ways of resisting once thedecision has heen made and the action is under-taken.

The ahiiity to detect a lack of eonsensus is,of course, a very important attrihute for a groupleader. A few rules of' thunih might he of helphere. The clue is that it is very difficult to findout whether there is a consensus, unless eachperson is aTlow ed to speak: for lack of disagree-ment docs not necessarily indicate that thegroup has consensus. Frequently ]ieople simplyare reluctant to raise their ohjections, flow-ever, if each member is asked separately whetheror not he assents to the issue, the group leadercan usually pick up objections:

C Fie may be able to spot disagreement by notic-ing such things as changes in tone of voice. In onegroup the leader asked if everyone agreed on asuggestetl eourse of action. As he went around theroom he got the following responses: yes, yes, yes,yes. yea, okay. This leader, being fairly astute,immediately began to question the man who hadsaid okay, beeause this man apparently coukl notquite bring himself to be like the other membersof the group vvith regard to this decision. Thisinabilitv is usuallv a good indicatioii of an objec-tion. I'hc individual is reluctant to object directlybecause of the weight of all the other membersdisagreeing vvith him.

After this man had been t(uizzcd for a while, itbecame clear that he did have a strong objection.Once he was allowed to talk it out, he went alongvvith the group and vvas quite willing to say yesand, in fact, to pitch in and work with the deci-sion that was finallv made.

Interpersonal Underworld 127

«l Another good indicator of lack of consensusis any attempt by a member to postpone a decisionhy further discussion or by further action of somekind. Comments like, "What is it we are votingon?" or "Weren't we supposed to tliscuss somethingelse first?" or "I ha\e no objection to that, but . . ."all indicate that the individual is not yet ready tocast a positive vote for a given decision. He prob-ably has an objection t.:iat ought to he brought outinto the open and discussecl.

Allov\ing the objector to raise bis jioint fordiscussion is not just ,i hollow gesture. Ihe ob-jector will be more likely to go along with thefinal decision — or he may eventually carrythe day beeause he rellects some ohjections thatother people had but vv ere not avv are of. \Vhctherthe group aetually changes its vote or not, itwill he more likely tc reach a correct decision.This opportunity for the group to discuss apreviously covert factor is \ cry important for itseffectiveness.

Authority Problem

Another group phenomenon that leads to re-duced effectiveness concerns the relationship ofthe group members to the leader of the group.(The term leader will be used loosely to meanthe person who is, in tbe eyes of the group mem-bers, supposed to head the group — usuallya formal leader, a designated person who has ahigher title.) It is the nature of such relation-ships that members of the group bave amhiva-lent feelings toward the authority figure — hothpositive and negative feelings. The negativefeelings can be particularly disturbing since itusually is hard for people to express such feel-ings directly, because their jobs may be in jeop-ardy or because they feel that they should notattack an authority figure.

Since the hostility must be expressed, how-ever, they often transfer it to another memberof the group. Some other member, usually onewith characteristics similar to those disliked inthe leader, will be attacked more than be realis-tically shoukl he for his behavior in the group.He will he attacked not only for what he does,but also because the attack that the group vvoukilike to level toward the leader is displaced ontohim. The term scapegoat is often used for thisperson. For example, if the group members aredissatisfied because the leader is not giving suf-ficient direetion to the group, the dissatisfactionmay be vented toward a silent or nonpartici-pating member, the member in the group who

128 Harvard Hitsiiiess Review

comes closest to having the characteristic of theleader which the group memhers do not like.For example:

In one marketing group the leader offered thegroup \ery little tlirectiou, far less than most mem-bers wouki have liked. Subsetjuently, everyone be-gan to get very angry with one gmup memberwho did not sa\ much and who occasionally missedmeetings beeause of his other commitments. Thegroup attacked him for his lack of interest andunwillingness to contribute to the group.

,\ kev to what was really happening is found inthe fact that he was actually quite interested andwas contributing a great deal, thus making the at-tack somewhat untk'served; but significantly, thecliaracteristics which angered the group memberswere precisely those that covertly irritated themabout the leader. .>\ppareutly they displaced theiraggression from the leader, whom they felt theycould not attack directly, onto a group member wholiad similar attributes.

This same mechanism operates when the bossis too authoritarian. Somebody in the group wholias similar tendencies will be severely attacked,again as a displacement of the attack they wouldlike to level at tbe boss.

With regard to dealing with this phenome-non, perhaps the most useful thing to he said isthat there are times when a leader, in order toallow a group to operate more effectively, musthimself heeome the scapegoat. If: he can absorbsome of the hostility that is really meant forIiim or perhaps in some cases even absorb someof the hostility meant for other group members,he can be most useful in helping a group tofunction more effectively. Of course, in orderto do this the leader must be aware that thehostility is not necessarily directed at him per-sonally; it is just an inevitable consequence ofgroup activity that hostility does arise. If hecan absorb the hostility directly, it does not haveto he deflected into the group where it is mosttlestructive to the group and to the group's abil-it\- to fulfill its purposes. An important part ofa leader's role is to be a scapegoat occasionallyin order that the group may proceed and operatemore efleetiveW. This situation brings to mindan old saying, ",\ good king is one whose sub-jeets prosper."

The Problem MemberAnother frequently occurring group difficulty

ts the presence of a problem member, one of themost difficult of all interpersonal prohlems for

a group to deal with. Problem memhers are oftwo main types — the overactive member andthe underactive meiuher. Fither can disruptgroup functioning, and hoth are usually diffi-cult to handle.

The overactive prohlem member dominatesthe group's attention far more than his abilitieswarrant. The dilTiculties arise partly becausethe apparent intensit)' of bis feelings leads to ageneral reluetanee of the group to hurt the indi-vidual while at the same time they cannot cur-tail his destructive activities. To illustrate whatcan happen in such a situation:

Tn one five-man group of military personnelworking on a series of tactical problems, Mac im-mediately took over control of the group. Becausehe vvas reasonably competent and highly forceful,he went unchallenged for several meetings. Theother group members were not \'ery compatible,so they had a difficult time handling Mae. Gradu-ally some members began losing interest in thegroup until one discussion of a very trivial topic,the postal rates from Washington to Chicago, cameup in one of their rest periods. Tbe exchange thatfollowed was amazing in that Mae was attackedseverely and at lengtTi by the other group mem-bers for his dogmatically stated opinion about postalrates. The group used this topic to veiit theirstored-up feelings toward Mac. By this time, how-ever, the group had no resources to cope with thesestrong feelings, and it quickly disintegrated afterthe conflict.

The optimal solution to the prohlem repre-sented hy tliis member is to liandle Tiini in sucha way that he can be retained in the group antlhis resources made use of and still not be al-lowed to obstruct the group's functioning:

Another group had this problem vvith Bob. Butthis group (]uiekly deposed Bob and set up a leaderof considerably less intellect but with superior co-ordinating abilities. For a short time after theyhad deposed Bob the group made sure he realizedhe vvas not going to run the group; then they gradu-ally allowed him baek into the group hy payingmore attention to his ideas. Finally, after aboutten meetings, his ideas were highly influential andsought by tlie group, althougTi he vvas not allowedto dominate. In this way the group took care ofthe problem presented by an overactive memherand was still able to utihzc his abilities. This is anideal solution and the sign of a strong, compatiblegroup.

Someone who will not become integrated intotbe group also poses a problem for the group.

The lack of commitment of this member, per-haps even a lack of willingness to work, consti-tutes a serious group problem. One solution isto eject the member from the group. This is asolution only insofar as it removes the souree ofa difficulty; it does not allow the group to utilizethe man's abilities. The prohlem iriemher oftenserves a useful function by enabling other mem-hers to direct their hostility toward him, so thatthey do not have to deal with the real differencesamong themselves. Thus, it is not unusual tbatif a chronically negative member 1:; absent, thegroup finds that it still has disagreements.

Framework for Behavior

Now that T have described exampTes of sev-eraT interpersonal problem situations and variousreactions to tliein, I shall present a brief outlineof a theory of interpersonaT heliavior. Tn orderto deal with interpersonal hehavior it is neces-sary to have an understanding of the generalprinciples of this hebavior, since formulas forhandling specific situations are of limited valueat best. The follovving theory is by no means theonly one extant in psychological literature, butit is offered as a possible framework for under-standing phenomena of the type under discus-sion here.

Interpersonal Needs

The hasis for evolving this theory of inter-personal behavior is the individual's fundamen-tal interpersonal relations orientation or, to ab-breviate, FIRO, The basic assumption of thisapproaeh is that people need people. Everyhuman being, because he lives in a society, mustestablish an equilihrium between himself andhis human environment — just as he must es-tahlish an equilibrium between himself and thephysieal world. This social nature of man givesrise to certain interpersonaT needs, whieh hemust satisfy to some degree while avoidingthreat to himself. Although eaeh individual hasdifferent intensities of need and different mecha-nisms for handling them, people have three basieinterpersonal needs in common:

The Need for Inelusioit. This is the need tomaintain a satisfactory relation hetwecn the selfand other people witTi respect to interaetion or be-Tongingness. Some peopTe Tike to be with otherpeopTe alT the time; they want to belong to organi-zations, lo interact, to mingle. Other peopTe seekmueh less contact; they prefer to be alone, to inter-

lulerpersonal Underworld 129act minimally, to stay cut of groups, to maintainprivacy.

If a continuum were to be drawn between thesetw'o extremes, every pei'son coukl be placed at apoint (or region) at which he feels most comfort-able. Thus, to a certain degree each individual istrying to belong to a group, but he is also tryingto maintain a certain amount of privacy. From theother point of view he wishes to some degree tohave people initiate interaetion toward him throughinvitations and the like., and also wishes to somedegree that people would leave him alone. Foreach dimension these two aspects may be distin-guished: (i) the behavior he initiates toward oth-ers, Iiis expressed behavior; and (2) the behaviorhe prefers others to express toward him, his want-ed behavior. This distinction will prove valuable inthe discussion of eompatihility,

The Need for Control. This is the need tomaintain a satisfactory relation between oneselfand other people vvith regard to power and influ-ence. Tn other words, eiery individual has a needto control his situation to some degree, so that hisenvironment can be predictable i'or him. Ordi-narily this amounts to controlling other people,because other people aie the main agents whichthreaten Tiim and create an unpredictable anduncontrollable situation. This need for eontrolvaries from those who want to control tlieir entireenvironment, incTuding all the people around them,to those who want to control no one in any situa-tion, no matter how appropriate controlling themwould be.

Here, again, everyone varies as to the degree towhich he wants to control others. In addition,everyone varies with respect to the degree to whichhe wants to he controlled hy other people, fromthose who want to he completely controlled andare dependent on others for making decisions forthem to those who want to be eontrolled underno conditions.

The Need for Affeetion. This is the need tomaintain a satisfactory relation between the selfand other people with regard to love and affection.In the business setting this need is seldom madeovert. It takes tTie form of friendship. In essence,affeetion is a relationship between two people only,a dyadic relationship. At one extreme individualsTike very cTose, personal relationships with eaehindividual they meet. At the other extreme arethose who like their personal relationships to bequite impersonal and distant, perhaps friendly hutnot close and intimate.

Again, between these two extremes everyone hasa level of intimacy which is most comfortable forhim. From the other side, each individual prefersthat others make overtures to him in a way thatindicates a certain degree of closeness.

130 Harvard Business Reiieu'

l o clarilV the various orientations in ihcscthree areas, liXiiTurr T presents the exlrome posi-tions taken on each of the dimensions. I'xcry-one ills sujnewhcre between these two extremes,most of them in the middle.

T. ExriuiME TTTF

EXPRESSED BFMAVIDR

.Ti TN-r Hl".i( rKil!Lr/t LOW

8tHA'- lUF(

U N11 n * SOCIAL COUNTLRSOCIAL

OVCRPLHSONAI UNUf.HMfFJKONAL

Group Compatibility

This theory of interpersonal relations ean bevery useful to businessmen in determining thecompatibility ol' the members of a group. If atthe outset we ean ehoose a group of people whoean work together harmoniously, we shall go fartoward avoiding situations where a group's ef-forts are wasted in interpersonal contliets.

Our theoretical framework is designed to han-dle this problem. Suppose we consider in moredetail the two aspeets for each one of the threeinterpersonal dimensions. One aspeet is whatwe do with relation to other people; let us eallthis "e" for expressed hehaviof. The seeond iswhat uc want Irom other people, how we wantthem to act toward us; let us call this "w" forwanted Ijchavior. Then we ean use "e" and "w"to try to find out how people will relate to eachother in the inclusion dimension ("I"), the con-trol dimension ("C"), and the affection dimen-sion ("A")> iis shown sehematically in EXHIBIT IL

II. ScirKMA o r INTEHI'KKSONAT.. BFHA\ IORS

F:XPR!:SS)£D BEHAVIOR WANTtID BEHAVIOR

peopip '0 conifnl

t vjon' people 10 gel t!05t

ir we make a ten-point scale, from zero tonine, and say that in each of the two aspects oi'the three dimensions everyone has some propen-sity, some preferred behavior, we ean charac-terize each person by six scores: e^ w^ e* , w' .

In the course of my researeh I have developeda questionnaire, called FIRO-B (the "Ii" refers

(.0 behavior), comprising a check list oF 54 state-ments tlcsigncd to measure an individual's pro-pensities in eaeh of these six categories; a por-tion of it is shown in lixirii'-rr TTI. The resultingscores for eaeh need area can be plotted on adiagram, as In MXIUJJII' IV.

IWo Kinds

that in iixiiuur fv there are two diag-onais, which may be used to explain two diiter-ent kinds of eumpatibility — "originator eom-patibility" (oK) and "interchange compatibility"(xK). Individuals can be located on these diag-onals from their scores (m FIllO-B.

fn popular literature there are at least twowell-known and app;irently contradictory max-ims relating to the bases of compatihility: "Op-posites attract," and "Birds of a feather flock to-gether." Considering the diagonals on EXHIBITrv might aid us in coming to a sensible resolutionof these maxims, since there seems to be sometruth in each of them:

Originator Diagonal. Let us take an example inthe control dimension and consider the lower rightto upper left line. The people who fall in the low-er right quadrant are the ones -who want to con-trol others and do not want to be controlled them-selves. These people ciin be called autocrat-rebels;they want to be the bosses and do not want anyoneelse to tell them what to do. In tbe upper leftcjuiidrant we have just the opposite. These arcabdicrat-submissives; they want to be told what todo, and they do not want to eonlrol anyone else.

Fur .smooth functioning it would appear that ifwe had one autocrat-rebel, we \ '()uid not want an-other one, since they would both want to give or-ders and neither would want to take them. Thisis called eompetitive incompatibility. Also, if wehad two abdicrat-submissives, a situation would becreated wherein both people want someone to tellthem what to do and neither wants to do the tell-ing. This is called apathctie iiieompatibility. How-ever, if we ha\e one autocrat-rebel and one abdi-erat-subniissive, the relationship will probably beharmonious, since one person nants to gi\e ordersand the other wants to take them.

JiitL-rchangc Diagonal. Now, consider the otherdiagonal 011 the diagram. Let us take att'ection foran example this time. In the upper right quadrantare the people who express a lot of close personalbehavior and want the same expressed to them.These are the people of "high interehange," andthey ean be called overpersonal-personal-compliants.They like an atmosphere in wliicli there is a lotof affeetion; so, for instanee, they woukl like aparty hcttcr than a bi»ard of directors meeting. In

luterpersoiial Underworld 13 1

EXHIBIT III . SAMPLE OF QUESTIOP^NATRE

NAME.

GROUP

DATE

MALE FEMALE,

AGEFIRO-B

please place number of the answer that hest applies to you in the box at the left o' the statement. Please be as

honest as you can.

I I i. I,try to be with people.1. iLsually 2. often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally 5. rarely

I I 2. 1 let other people decide what to do.1, usiijily 2. often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally

I I 3. I join social groups.^___^ !. usually 2. often ?. sometimes 4. occasionally

I I 4. I try to have close relationships with people.1. iiqi,i!Iy 2, often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally

5. i teed to ]oin social organizations when I have an opportunity.I, uMially 2. often 3. sometime,^

-.other people strongly influence my actions.2, often 3. sometimes

I I 24, I lei other people control my acti1, most

people

I I 25. J act coo! and distant with people.I. ;iu),st 2. many

peopk- people

I ) 26. I am easily led by people.I, most 2. many

peoplt peoplt

4. occasionally

4. OCCTsil

4 . oi:c:isi(

5. rarely

5. rarely

5. rarely

5. rarely

5. rarely

5, rarely

5. rarely

5. rarely

6. never

6. ne

ncicr

6. never

G. never

6. iKvrr

6. iicicr

3. somepcopk

I j 27. I try to have close, person,jl relationships with people,] . mo^t 2. many 3. some

people people people

4. a Ecu-

4. :i fewpeople

5. one i.r [W(j 6. nobudyjifriple

5. one or two 6. nobody

c.

(See other side)Reproduction in whole or p.irt peri^ilted lor iny iniipo>e oi iht Unitcii ^t.iie^ Gu>.Trii:nciu

the lower left quadrant arc people of "low inter-change," who like neither to give nor to receive at'-lection. They can be called iinderpersonal-counter-personals. They do not want anyone to get veryclose to them, nor do they want to get very close to

ExniurT iv. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF INTER-

PERSONAL DIMENSIONS

RECEIVER ONLY

\ \s

W»WANTED \OTHER-TO-SELF N ^BEHAVIOR s

0 \

e-EXPRESSED ySELF-TO-OTMER , 'BEHAVIOR Q , ' '

f

LOW INTERCHANGE'

/

HIGH INTERCHANGE

y

A9

s

• > .

ORIGINATOR ONLY

anyone. Tliey like tbeir relations rather reserved,cool, and distant.

Here the complementary idea of the originatordiagonal — that opposites attract — does not ap-ply; for, if one person likes to be very close andpersonal and the other person does not, they aregoing to threaten each other. One who likes tokeep his relations reserved is not going to like itwhen the other makes overtures; and, in the re-verse direction, the one who wants very close rela-tions is not going to be very happy if the otherdocs not. So it seems reasonable that the situationwould lead to harmony more readily il:' the peopleinvolved were close on this diagonal, unlike thesituation on the originator diagonal.

In the inclusion d,!mension, again, it would bebetter if both interacting persons were very closeto being cither very high or very low on this diag-onal so that one would not always \vant to be withpeople while tbe other wanted to stay home and

t.-)2 llamird^ Business Revieu'

read a book. Hence, on the intcrcliangc diasfonalthe "birds of a feather'' maxim seems most appro-priate; people sbould be similar in their valuesalong this diagonal.

Predictable RelationsTo exemplify the \\orkintj ot the teehnitjue

let us consider ILxiinsii iv lor the eontrol area:

from llRO-B we learn tbat A ha.s a score of 8 one"-' antl 5 on w* ', wbilc B has a score of i on c*' andI uJi w". Tbese points are plotted on the diagram.lacb score, for illustrative purposes, may be di-vided into two eomponents, one on each diagonal.Tbese eompf)nents art' rt-jiresentcd by a antl a,, andbj,- and 1),, on tbe diagram.

Tbe measure of intert:bangc eompatibihlA' (\K)of A autl B i-S proportional to tbe distance betweena,v and b,,. A smaller distance means a more simi-lar orientation toward tbe amount of interebangeof eontrol tbat should exist in a relation. In tbeexample, A believes tbat relations sbould involvea great deal of influence antl control, while B'sprefcrenee is for less structured, more laissez-fairerelations. Their incompatibility in tbis regard isreflected in tbe relatively large distanee between;(;, and b; .

Originator compatibility (oK) is proportional totbe sum of a^ and b . Optimal originator com-patibility oecurs when one seore is to tbe left of themidpoint of tbe diagonal and tbe otber seore isexactly tbe sazne di.stanee to tbe right of the inid-point. In our example this is almost exactly true;thus A and B have bigb originator compatibility.A wishes to eontrol otbers but not to be controlled,while B wishes to be eontrolled but not to eontrolor influence othcr.s very mueh. Hence tbey com-plement eaeh otber.

Our eonelusion then about this pair is the fol-lowing: tbey disagree as to the atmosphere theydesire regarding mutual influence and eontrol. Alikes structured hierarchies while B prefers morepermissive relations. However, wben tbere is asituation of a eertain strueture, tbey are compatiblewitb regard to tbe roles they will take in relationLo eaeh other. A wdll take the influential, respon-sible position, and B will take the subordinate role.

These psyehological considerations ean veryeasily be convertetl into formulas, and in re-search work and praetieal ap|ilieations tbis isdone. There ha\e heen several experiments }ier-formed which indicate the usefulness of tinsapproach. These experiments demonstrate thatgroups of from two to eight can be composed —based on FTRO-B scores — in sueh a way thattheir productivity, and to some extent their in-teraction, is predictable. Much research is still

to be done to improve the aceuracv of these pre-dictitms, l)Ut the results are hi<ihly encouraging.'

Group DevelopmentAnother major point in the thcor}' is that c\ '

cry group, no matter what its tiinelion or compo-sition, given enough time, goes throu'^b tbe tbreeinterpersonal pbases of inclusion, control, andaffection in the same se(|ucnee. To illustrate:

lleeently i «'as interviewing a member of agroup, wbieb Iiad just eompleteti 30 meetings, toget an idea of ber feeling about the experience.In response to tbe (juestion, "How w oiild you de-scribe wbat happened in tbis grimp?" she replietl,"W ell, Orst you re eoneeined about tbe probleni ofwbere \oii lit in the group; tben youVe wonder-ing about wbat \()u'll acct)mplish. Finally, after i\while, you learn that people mean something. Yourprimary eoneern becomes bow people ted aboutyou and about eaeb otber."

In or OutFirst, lhe inclusion phase centers arouml the

question of 'in or out." It begins with the for-mation of the group. Wben people are con-fronted with each other, they must fust iind theplace where tbey lit in. This involves being inor out of the group, establishing oneself as iispecilic individual, and seeing if one is goin; tobe paid attention to and not be left behind orignored. This anxiety area gives rise to indi-vidual-centered behavior sueh us overtalking,extreme withdrawal, exhibitionism, recitation otbiographies and other previous experienee.

At the same time the basic problem of eom-niitnient to the group is present. Fach memberis implicitly deciding to \\hat degree he willbecome a member of the group, how much in-vestment he will withdraw from his other com-mitments and invest in this new relationship.He is asking, "How mueh of myself will I tie-vote to this grf)iipr I low important will I be inthis setting? \M\\\ they know^ who I am antlw hat I can do, or will I be indistinguishablefrom many others?" This is, in short, tbe prob-lem of identity. He is, in elleet. deciding pri-marily on his preferred amount of inclusion in-terchange ant! his preferred amount of inclu-sion initiation Avith the other members — jnsthow much aetual contact, interaction, and com-munieation he wishes to bave.

Hence, the main concerns of the formativeprocess iire "boundary pro];)lems," problems tbiit

' See William C, Schutz, op. cit.

ha\'c to do with entering into the houndarieso( a group and hclonging to that group. Thesearc problems ol' inclusion.

Characteristic ot' groups in this phase is theoccurrence ol: what have been called "gobletisstics." The term is taken trom an analogy toa cocktail party where people sometimes picktip their coektail glass, or goblet, and figurativelypeei- through it to size up the other people atthe party. Hence, they are issues that in them-sehes are ol' minor importance to the groupmeml)crs but serve as vehicles I'or getting toknow people, especially in relation to oneself.

Oltcn a goblet issue is made of the first deci-sion confronting a group. In some grt)iips dis-cussions leading to a deeision about such anissue continue for an unbelievably long time andthen ne\er reaeh a conclusion. But there hasheen a great deal of learning in that the metn-hers have gained a i'airly clear picture of eachother. I'acb meinl)er knows who responds favor-ably to him, who sees things the way he does,how inueh he knows as compared to the oth-ers, how the leader responds to him, and whattype ol' role he can expect to play in the group.Acquiring this knowledge is the unconsciouspurpose of the goblet issue.

The frustrating experience of having groupsendlesslv diseuss topics of little real interest toan\'one is very eommon. Every group findsits o\\ n goblet issues within the framework of itsaim. "The weather" is fairly universal; "rulesof procedure' is common in formal groups; "!3oyou know so-and so?" often characterizes newacquaintances from the same location; relatingincidents or telling stories has a goblet elementfor business gatherings; and "\^%ere arc youfrom?" often ser\os for military settings. MarkTwain apparently overlooked the fact that no-bo(h' really wants to "do anything ahout theweather" — they just want to use it as a topicfor si/ing up people. These discussions are in-evitable, and, contrary to all outward appear-ances, they do serve an important fnnetion.Ciroups \\hich are not permitted this type oftesting out ^vill seareh lor some other methodof obtaining the same personal information, per-haps using as a vehicle a decision of more im-portance to the uork of the group.

Top or Bottom

;\fter the problems of inelusion have beensuffieienth' resolved, control problems becomeprominent. This phase centers around the proh-

Interpersonal Underworld 133

lem of "top or bottom." Once members arefairly well established as being together in agroup, the issue of decision-making proceduresarises. This involves problems of sharing re-sponsibility and its necessary concomitant, dis-tribution of power it:Td eontrol. Characteristicbehavior at this stage includes leadership strug-gles; competition; and discussion of orienta-tion to the task, structuring, rules of procedure,methods of decision making, and sharing theresponsibility for the group's \\-ork. The primaryanxieties at this phase revolve around havingtoo much or too little responsibility and toomuch or too little influence. Kaeh member istrying to establish hi:nself in the group so thathe has the most comfortable amount of inter-ehange and the most cotnfortable degree ofinitiation with the oi:her members with regardto control, influence, and responsibility.

Near or Far

1 inally, following a satisfactory resolution ofthese phases, problems of affection become fo-cal. This phase centers on the issue of "nearor far." The individuals have come together toform a group; they have differentiated them-selves with respect tti responsibility and power.Now they must become emotionally integrated.At this stage it is ch,iracteristie to see such he-ha\ ior expressed through positive feelings, directpersonal hostility, jealousies, pairing behavior,and, in general, heightened emotional feelingbetween pairs of people.

The primary anxieties at this stage have todo with not being lilted or close enough to peo-ple or with being to:) intimate. Each memberis striving to obtain his most favorable amountof ail'ectional interchange and most eomfortableposition regarding initiating and receiving affec-tion — deckling, like Schopenhauer's porcu-pines, how to get dost! enough to receive warmth,yet avoid the pain of sharp quills.

Tightening the Bolts

These are not distinet phases. The groupdevelopment postulate asserts that these prob-lem areas arc ei}!phasized at certain points ina group's growth, hut all three problem areasare always present. Similarly, some people donot always go along with the eentral issue forthe group. For eertain individuals a particularprol)lem area will be so personally potent thatit will transcend the current group issue. Thearea of eoneern for any individual will result

134 Harvard Business Review

from his own problem areas and those of thegroup's current phase. Perhaps a close approxi-mation to the developmental phenomena is giv-en hy the tire-changing model:

When a person changes a tire and replaces thewheel, he first sets the wheel in place a?id securesit by tightening the bulLs one after another justenough so the wheel is in place and the next stepcan be taken. Then the holts are tightened further,usually in the same .sequence, until the wheel isfirmly in place. Finally each bolt is gone over sepa-rately to seeure it.

In a similar way, the need areas arc workedon until they are handled satisfaetorily enoughto continue with the work at hand. Later onthey are returned to and worked over to a moresatisfaetory degree. If one need area has notbeen worked out well on the first sequence, itmust receive more attention on the next cycle.

/Vpplicalions oi Theory

The next ([uestion is: What can we do aboutthese problems so as to utilize this informationpractically? This is more difficult. The aboveanalysis is derived largely from experience withexperimental research on small groups selectedfor this purpose. Solutions for the problemsobserved are largely, though not entirely, specu-lative and can only be offered as suggestionswhieh should be explored carefully in each in-dividual case before being adopted.

More specifically, the interpretations |iresent-cd here can be looked upon as stiggestions fordiagnosis. The more men in business can be-come aware of the basie faetors underlying theirinterpersonal difficulties, the better they will beable to meet these difficulties. As in the prac-tice of medicine, if the disease is properly diag-nosed, the doetor has a better ehanee of curingit than if it is improperly or superficially diag-nosed, even though a eorrect diagnosis by nomeans guarantees a cure.

Clearing the AirSerious interjiersonal difficulties that arc lelt

covert only smolder and erupt at the expense ofeffieieney and productivity. The most effectiveway covert difficulties can be dealt with is bylirst making them overt. For example:

In one marketing group, tlie leader finally toldone mcmljcr thai lie did not like the way he wasacting in the group anti that he felt he should con-tribute more. After a brief but diffictilt and bitter

exchange the two began to tell each other theirfeelings about the situation. They managed toclear the air, and the situation improved marketliy.

When successful, overt discussion is like acold shower: it is approached with apprehen-sion, the initial impact is very uncomfortable,but the final rcsuh justifies the tribulations.

To summarize, "interpersonal problems" in-clude difftcultics such as members ^vho arcwithdrawn from a group; personal hostilitiesbetween members; problem mcm!)crs who areeither inaetive and unintcgrated or overaetiveand destructive; power struggles between groupmembers; members battling for attention; dis-satisfaction with the leadership in the group;dissatisfaction with the amount of acknowledg-ment that an individual's contributions are get-ting; or dissatisfaction with the amount of af-fection and warmth exhibited in the group.

If it becomes quite clear to the group mem-bers that their difficulties are so severe that theiractivity is being impaired, then bringing theissues out into the open and talking about themwill help. It is somewhat difficult, ho'svever, totell cxaetly i^hen a problem is so severe that itis holding the group up. Perhaps some of tlieearlier discu.ssion ol" symptoms will be usefulfor assessing the effect of interpersonal factorson the group.

It might be helpful to view groups (includinganywhere from two to twent)' people) on a con-tinuum — from those that arc eompletely com-patible, that is, tible to work well together, tothose that are completely incompatible, that is.ineapable of \\orking together. Any particulargroup can he placed somewhere along this con-tinuum. To illustrate:

The iiicmbtTs of the group at the extreme com-patible end of the continiiui]i arc able to work welltogether within a relatively short time with a mini-mum of: difficulty and can operate effectively overa period of time on a «idc variety of problems.They need no training or new awareness.

The group at the incompatible end, ho\vc\'Cr,cannot work cffccLivoly. l'he iiitcrjicrsonal prob-lems that eause the task dilTictiltics are so dccp-seatcd in the personalities of the indi\ ittual mem-bers that no amount of outside assistance willbe A\orthwhile. It would take so lon :; before this•:;roui) could operate effectively that, from a prac-tical standpoint, any klud of training of the groupjiicmbcrs or ;)iiy awareness of their problems wouldhe unfruitful.

Between these two extreme tvpcs arc groups thatprofit more or less by the kind oi' awareness whieh

has been discussed. If a group is relatively nearthe compatible end, with a minimum, of awarenessand a minimum of di,scussion of its difficult proh-lems, it will heeome a smoothly functioning group.If interpersonal problems in a group are very minor,they can usually be ignored without impairing thegroup seriously; or, if the problems exist betweentwo members, they ean often work out their diffi-culties by themselves outside the group.

With groups near the incompatible end muchmore intensive work has to he done to get throughtheir problems so that they can function effective-ly. Sueh work should probably he guided hy some-one who is experienced with group process and canhelp group memhers to work out their difficulties.

Another advantage of this approach operatesmore through the individuals than the group.If the individual members can gain the kind ofawareness of their own needs in situations asdiscussed in this article, then this in itself willhelp them to understand their reactions to otherpeople and, perhaps, to operate more eff'ectively.In addition, it is often helpful to point out togroup members that other people have the samebasic needs; for, if they understand what otherpeople are trying to do, they may be more tol-erant of other people's behavior. Since every-one has these needs, everyone tries to get thesame thing from other people, even though eachmay use different adaptive patterns for achiev-ing his ends. To illustrate such a mechanism:

It generally is felt that if an individual has anexcessively strong negative reaction to another in-dividual in the setting of a work group, the indi-vidual who is irritated fears deep down withinhimself that he is like the one who annoys him,that he himself has the trait that is so annoying,it is threatening for him to see it in some otherindividual, and he must immediately deny it andattack it. almost as if he were trying to deny tohimself that he is like this.

Awareness of mechanisms of this type mayhelp in understanding what is happening in thegroup and one's own reaction in t;he situation.

Conclusion

The time seems to have eome for the husiness-man to make use of some of the social scientists'more recent findings on the uneonseious, orcovert, factors in human interaction. Since thebusinessman does deal so heavily in interper-sonal relations, his skill and success are de-pendent on his ability to understand interper-

hiterpersonal Underworld 135

sonal relations and to deal effectively with them.Thus, it becomes important for him to gain amore basie understanding instead of simply try-ing out panaeeas that aim only at the symptomsof the problems and not at the basie problemsthemsehes. He must understand the vast inter-personal underworld that operates beneath theovert, observable behavior.

As I have already pointed out, current inter-est in what are called "communications proh-lems" provides an example of the symptomaticapproach, for these problems are symptoms ofpoor interpersonal relations rather than primarycauses of operational difficulties. It is an error,therefore, to try to attack the problems of eom-munieation hy buildirg more effective physicallines of communieation, when the trouble reallylies in the relation between individuals. Theway to attack the basic problem would seem tobe to investigate what is going on among the in-dividuals themselves and try to improve thoserelations.

If it is true that the unconscious factors areso all-important to understanding groups, thenwe ought to find out exaetly how these factorsdo affect what the businessman is usually pri-marily interested in, namely effective operation.In this article I have tried to illustrate the in-adequacy of attempting to operate by ignoringinterpersonal diffieulties and attending to thetask only, since in reality the interpersonal fae-tors somehow find their way into the task anddirectly affect the productivity of the group.No matter how mueh people try to keep inter-personal problems out: by ignoring them, theywill turn up in subtle forms such as loss ofmotivation, tiredness, or the group member'spreoccupation with outside tasks; or they mayget entangled directly with the solution of thetask and have to be worked out in the body ofthe problem.

I have offered a theoretical framework whichmay bo of some help in understanding the struc-ture of these interpersonal problems in an at-tempt to aid in the diagnosis of interpersonalbehavior. Sueh a diagnosis may then leave thebusine.ssman in a better position to deal withwhat aetually occurs. I have tried to suggestpossible lines of solution, but these attempts areoffered in a mueh more speculative manner.Although they are based on rather extensive ex-perience with psychological phenomena, theyare only suggestions that the individual business-man must try out and adapt to his own needs.