Business depends on group effort, and
group effort depends on the . . .
INTERPERSONAL
UNDER 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 overcoming
the difficulties that inevitably arise when people
get together. The terms which have been used
to describe these problems — terms like "disci-
plinary problems," "human relations troubles,"
or the currently popular "communications diffi-
eulties" — have served only to hide the real
difficulties, for they are descriptions of symptoms.
The real causes must be sought at a deeper
level; they lie in interpersonal relations.
In every meeting of two or more people two
levels of interaction occur. One is the overt —
the play that is apparently being played. The
other is the covert — like a ballet going on in
back of the performanee on the interpersonal
stage — a subtle struggle for attention and status,
for eontrol and influence, and for liking and
warmth. This ballet influences the performanee
by pushing the overt players into unusual pos-
tures ant! making them say and do unusual
things. Thus, the objective, hardheaded execu-
tive is overtly very resistant to a splendid idea
suggested by the brash young fellow who may
someday replace him. But this example is mueh
too obvious. The ballet's effect on the actors is
usually more subtle.
The importance of these covert factors can
hardly be overestimated. The productivity of
any particular group is profoundly inffuenced
by 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 points
covered licrc, see my fortheoming book, FIRO: A Three-
interpersonal differences existing within a group
setting can be effectively handled by ignoring
them — as if by the magie of closing your e\es
you could make problems go away. Rather, in-
terpersonal problems must be understood and
deaJt with. If ignored, they are usually trans-
formed so that they are not expressed direct-
ly as open hostility but find their expression
through the task behsvior of the group. Failure
to allow these group processes to work in a direct
fashion will decrease tlie group's productivity.
The types of bcha^•ior that result from inter-
personal difficulties are various. In many cases
it is difficult to reeognize their conneetion Avith
interpersonal relations in tbe work situation. To
illustrate 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 situations
giving rise to these behaviors.
Behavioral Symptoms
Generally, 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, fail
to support, or saboti^ge another. The mecha-
nisms to be diseussed here are largely covert, or
unconscious; the individual does these things
without being aware of his intention to resist
or obstruct.
Communications Problems
These 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 by
communications 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 what
they say. Thus, if the boss really feels his re-
search scientist is not very important, tbat feel-
ing will be communicated to the scientist mueh
more readily than any words that pass between
them. T^or another thing, communications diffi-
culties are primarily the result of interpersonal
diffieulties; they are seldom themseTv^es a pri-
mary cause of problems. Resisting another per-
son is of"tcn accomplished through the medium
of eomuiunication. Thus:
«[ \ person may find it difficult to understand
what is being said, or, sometimes, actually not
hear what is said. Often a person feels eonftised; he
just eannot follow all the things that are going on.
Another sign of resistance is incoherent speech,
mumbling, not bothering to make a point clear, or
not making sure that the listener has heard. All
of these oceurrenees impede the process of verbal
communication.
C Tlesistanee may also take the form of forget-
ting to pick up a message that was to have been
left on one's desk. Or one may forget to mail a
memo or leave a message of importance to someone
else; or the message may be garT)ied, ambiguous,
of aetually contain a factual error. Similarly, mis-
reading and misinterpretation increase greatly in
situations of interpersonal strife.
Tndividually, tlicse behaviors aTT appear to be
simpTe human failings and, indeed, in many
cases may be only that. However, it is always
a good bet, especially when the incidents recur,
that they are unconsciously motivated by in-
terpersonal differences. In short, interpersonal
problems frequently find expression througb the
obstruction of valid communication. Excessive
communications problems can usually be inter-
preted as a symptom of intcrpersonaT troubTe.
Loss of Motivation
Another expression of interpersonaT probTems
is tTie Toss of motivation to work on a task. In
innumerable ways the individual s work beeomes
ineffective because he Tacks the desire to pro-
duce. The accumuTation of many minor ineffi-
cieneies amounts to the equivaTent of Tosing tTie
serviees of a group member or a part of one
or more members' resources and abilities. For
example:
C Tf a group member is supposed to look up some
information which is needed for other members of
the group to complete their work, he may just miss
getting to the eompany library hefore Friday night
elosing time. Therefore he will have to wait over
the weekend and, in the meantime, hold up two
other people who are waiting for his report. Or
perhaps some morning he will oversleep when he
shoukl be at the eoinmitlee meeting.
« Another individual does only what is required
of him and nothing extra. Tf he works from nine
to five, he will leave promptly at five, for he eon-
sidcrs his work a ehore, a task to be aceomplished
and nothing more. Tf something goes wrong be-
cause of someone else's error. Tie wiTT make no effort
to eonipensate for it. Tf Tie is not very busy and
someone 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 than
he had thought when the group began. T^e finds
that he has eonflictiiig meetings and other things
to do whieh foree him to leave meetings early, to
arrive late, or perhaps even to miss one. Or he
may have reports to write that prevent him from
coming 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 or
some conmiitmeut at home that preveuts his com-
ing; there may be any one of a large numljer of
reasons for his absence or lateness, many of which
are rational. But these situations may happen too
often to make the whole pattern a rational one. Tf
a man has a meeting and the snow is heavy, it may
be that he eannot make the meeting beeause of the
traffie situation; hut if it were a meeting which he
really wanted to attend, the snow would not be a
great 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 great
difficulty in bringing himself to work and to perse-
vere on a job onee it is begun. It often happens
that an individual who feels completely exhausted
in one part of his work situation miraculously perks
up when a new task comes along or when he goes
home to a more enjoyable activity. Again, this is
not a case of deliberate malingering. TTie person
actually feels tired. When the conBict-inditeing
situation is removed, the tiredness lifts.

In general, what is happening is that a person
sudden!)' fintis that other groups in which his
interpersonal relations are happier are more im-
portant than the present group, and hence his
motivation to work in tbe situation is reduced.
\ man will seek a situation in which lie is
happiest and will attempt to avoid unpleasant
situations as far as possible. In other words,
hv escapes the situation h)' withdrawing his
involvement.
Tndiscriminatc C)])p{)sili()ii
Another category of responses to interpersonal
difficulties involves direet blockage of aetion.
This mecbanisin is often (|uite overt and con-
scious, liut it likewise has many covert and
uncoiiscicnis forms.
A symptom of a bad relationship is resistance
to suggestions. It uiay happen that an indivitlual
in tbe group makes suggestions which are op-
posctl hy atiother member regardless of their
merit. As soon as the first member begins to
talk, the seeond man •— because he feels hos-
tile to the first — feels a surge of resistance or
reluctance to acccjit anything he is going to
hear. Tbis is, of eourse, not beneficial from the
standpoint of tbe group, because a very good
suggestion may he rejected for irrelevant per-
sonal reasons.
Tbe manner in vvbicTi such opposition is
manifested is often very subtle. Tf an antagonist
makes a suggestion, ratTier than use direct at-
tack an individiuiT may say smilingly, "That
sounds interesting, hut perhaps if we tried this
other method it would be even more effective."
Another techni(jue is to postpone a decision on
an oji|i()ne7it's suggestion. The parliamentary
procedure of "tabling'' is one formal method, as
are setting up investigating eommittees, consid-
ering other matters first, offering amendments,
or being unavailable for a meeting to decide on
the suggestion. Undoubtedly the experienced
husinessuian can extend this list indefinitely.
Again, it is important to note that, although
the techniques are often deliberately used, they
are perhaps used even more often without the
user's avvareness of his motivation.
Operational Problems
There are several ailments ol total group
functioning that are symptomatic of interper-
sonal diffieulties. In most eases, difficulty in
reaching 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 make
such a decision involves saying yes to the pro-
ponents of another view. Compromises are then
put through that satisfy neither side and that
certain]} do not accomplish the task as effec-
tiveh as the group could under optimal c(jndi-
tions. The compromise is really one between
the individuals who are in conflict, and not a
compromise, essentially, of tbe issues of the case.
Another s\mpto!ii of interpersonal problems
in a group is incfficiert division of labor. If the
relationships 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 group
ean operate more clfectively. Strongly held in-
terpersonal feelings pievent the group from say-
ing no to somehody who wants to he in a
particular position in the group hut vvhtmi the
other mcjubers eonsitier unsuilcd to that posi-
tion. This person may, therefore, he put into
the role anyway, to the detriment of the func-
tioning of the group. For example:
In one groLip of marketing personnel ibere was
a man of clearly outstanding abilities regarding
ideas for the solution of tlie group's problem. Be-
cause of his strength and dominance in the group
he vvas aeceptetl as the leader. One result of this
was 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 the
group's task was diminished.
A second result was that he coukl not aet as a
good administrator, that is, eouki not effectively
coordinate the efforts of the other group memhers.
So, hy not being able to say no to this person, or by
not being able to diseuss more openly the best use
lo be made of his abilities, the group lost in two
verv important ways.
Another frequent instance of this difficulty is
putting a man who is extremely capable in a
subordinate role, with the result that his abili-
ties cannot be utilized by the group. Thus:
In a diff'erent group the phejiomenon opposite to
the previous example occurred, resulting in equal
injury to the group's performance. T3ecause of per-
sonal hostility from several other members the
most competent man vvas relegated to the role of
secretary. There his time was consumed taking
jninutes, and his stellar abilities were wasted.
In general, then, ability to jilace men prop-
erly within a group is one indication of good
basic interpersonal relations, while inahility is
a sign that there must be something wrong
126 Harvard Busine.ss Preview
among the people that prevents them from using
their 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 obvious
than at others. Here are three examples of in-
terpersonal problems heing expressed directly in
work 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 major
manufacturer. The members developed a market-
ing strategy for this produet in which the big stress
was on the image tliat the product would present
to consumers. In fact, they put so mueh stress on
the image that they neglected certain other factors.
My observations of this group in operation indi-
cated the reason for the inefficient emphasis. From
the beginning certain men were assigned by the
group, not to the actual task, but to the presenta-
tion to be made to the eompany at the completion
of the work. Some of them became very concerned
with the impression they would make — in fact
more ct)ncerned with this than with the impression
the product would make. Therefore, they uneon-
sciously sought the aspect of their assigned task
which vvouki allow them to work on their inter-
personal problem and anxiety and concentrated on
it to the consecjuent neglect of other factors whieh
were also important.
II Another group evolved a marketing strategy
for bringing out a family of products. On examina-
tion, it appeared that this product family was not
particularly well integrated. Tn addition, there vvas
reason to helieve that a single product would be
more effective.
From interviews with the individual members
and from observations of their working as a group,
it became clear that the family of products vvas
a compromise solution. Certain memhers of the
group had wanted one product; others Tiad wanted
a different one. Tnstead of trying to w^ork out these
differences of opinion in terms of marketing con-
siderations, the group decided implicitly to bring
out 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 representatives
immediately wondered about the wisdom of using
such autonomous distributors, since company-hired
distributors should lead to more profits. The group
was at a loss to justify its own suggestion.
/Vgaiu, observations of tbe group throughout the
term indicated a possible reason. 'T'he group had
had a serious interpersonal blowup at one point,
and the members had decided to go their separate
ways. The result of this tieeision vvas autonomous
operation hy the individual members of the group.
Apparently tlie group members were luicoiiseiously
influenced by the faet that their group coukl oper-
ate more effectively as autonomous individuals.
Interpersonal problems are often worked out
on some aspect of the task that closely approxi-
mates the relationship which is of concern to
the group (eompany to dealer, company to con-
sumer, and so forth). In this way the tensions
generated by the interpersonal problems can be
relieved by symbolically displacing them into
the work situation. Ihe drawback of this phe-
nomenon is that, although it appears tbat the
group is very task-oriented, its work may in fact
he quite inappropriate and inefficient at many
points.
Common Issues
W^e have looked at some of the behaviors
which may be eonsidered symptomatic of inade-
quate interpersonal relations. Certain problem
situations that occur In group and interperson-
al dealings vvith great frequency generate these
symptoms. As an illustration of the nature of the
problems and some of their vicissitudes, I shall
now discuss three ol" them.
Consensus for Decision
In every group, sooner or later, a decision-
making apparatus must he agreed on. Whether
it he consensus, majority rule, luianimity, or any
other method, there must he some modus oper-
andi for the grouj) to make decisions. By con-
sensus 1 mean, here, that everyone in the group
is agreed tbat a certain course of action is best
for the group, regardless of whether or not he
individually agrees with it. Ordinarily, if the
group does not have consensus and a deeision
goes 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 a
vote, ant! the vote is fairly decisive, say six to two.
The two people in the minority, however, do not
really t'eel that they have had an opportunity to
express their feelings about the issue, Although
they 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 the
sunjitoms alreatly mentioned. Perhaps the most
common svinptom is a loss of interest, although
this situation could be expected to give rise to any
of theni-
I h e (juestion of consensus is central in de-
cision jiiaking. in a deeper sense, consensus
means that everyone in a group feels that the
group undcrstantis his position and his feelings
about il; and he feels, then, that the group
shoukt take a particular course of action even
though he does not pcrsonaliv' agree. If the
individual is not allowed to voice bis own feel-
ings and reasons for voting against the particu-
lar issue, he will, at least unconsciously, resist
the efficient functioning of the group from that
point on. If consensus is not required, dceisions
can 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 the
decision 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 group
leader. A few rules of' thunih might he of help
here. The clue is that it is very difficult to find
out whether there is a consensus, unless each
person is aTlow ed to speak: for lack of disagree-
ment docs not necessarily indicate that the
group has consensus. Frequently ]ieople simply
are reluctant to raise their ohjections, flow-
ever, if each member is asked separately whether
or not he assents to the issue, the group leader
can usually pick up objections:
C Fie may be able to spot disagreement by notic-
ing such things as changes in tone of voice. In one
group the leader asked if everyone agreed on a
suggestetl eourse of action. As he went around the
room he got the following responses: yes, yes, yes,
yes. yea, okay. This leader, being fairly astute,
immediately began to question the man who had
said okay, beeause this man apparently coukl not
quite bring himself to be like the other members
of the group vvith regard to this decision. This
inabilitv is usuallv a good indicatioii of an objec-
tion. I'hc individual is reluctant to object directly
because of the weight of all the other members
disagreeing vvith him.
After this man had been t(uizzcd for a while, it
became clear that he did have a strong objection.
Once he was allowed to talk it out, he went along
vvith the group and vvas quite willing to say yes
and, 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 consensus
is any attempt by a member to postpone a decision
hy further discussion or by further action of some
kind. Comments like, "What is it we are voting
on?" or "Weren't we supposed to tliscuss something
else first?" or "I ha\e no objection to that, but . . ."
all indicate that the individual is not yet ready to
cast a positive vote for a given decision. He prob-
ably has an objection t.:iat ought to he brought out
into the open and discussecl.
Allov\ing the objector to raise bis jioint for
discussion is not just ,i hollow gesture. Ihe ob-
jector will be more likely to go along with the
final decision — or he may eventually carry
the day beeause he rellects some ohjections that
other people had but vv ere not avv are of. \Vhcther
the group aetually changes its vote or not, it
will he more likely tc reach a correct decision.
This opportunity for the group to discuss a
previously covert factor is \ cry important for its
effectiveness.
Authority Problem
Another group phenomenon that leads to re-
duced effectiveness concerns the relationship of
the group members to the leader of the group.
(The term leader will be used loosely to mean
the person who is, in tbe eyes of the group mem-
bers, supposed to head the group — usually
a formal leader, a designated person who has a
higher title.) It is the nature of such relation-
ships that members of the group bave amhiva-
lent feelings toward the authority figure — hoth
positive and negative feelings. The negative
feelings can be particularly disturbing since it
usually 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 not
attack an authority figure.
Since the hostility must be expressed, how-
ever, they often transfer it to another member
of the group. Some other member, usually one
with characteristics similar to those disliked in
the 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 vvouki
like to level toward the leader is displaced onto
him. The term scapegoat is often used for this
person. For example, if the group members are
dissatisfied because the leader is not giving suf-
ficient direetion to the group, the dissatisfaction
may 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 the
leader which the group memhers do not like.
For example:
In one marketing group the leader offered the
group \ery little tlirectiou, far less than most mem-
bers wouki have liked. Subsetjuently, everyone be-
gan to get very angry with one gmup member
who did not sa\ much and who occasionally missed
meetings beeause of his other commitments. The
group attacked him for his lack of interest and
unwillingness to contribute to the group.
,\ kev to what was really happening is found in
the fact that he was actually quite interested and
was contributing a great deal, thus making the at-
tack somewhat untk'served; but significantly, the
cliaracteristics which angered the group members
were precisely those that covertly irritated them
about the leader. .>\ppareutly they displaced their
aggression from the leader, whom they felt they
could not attack directly, onto a group member who
liad similar attributes.
This same mechanism operates when the boss
is too authoritarian. Somebody in the group who
lias similar tendencies will be severely attacked,
again as a displacement of the attack they would
like to level at tbe boss.
With regard to dealing with this phenome-
non, perhaps the most useful thing to he said is
that there are times when a leader, in order to
allow a group to operate more effectively, must
himself heeome the scapegoat. If: he can absorb
some of the hostility that is really meant for
Iiim or perhaps in some cases even absorb some
of the hostility meant for other group members,
he can be most useful in helping a group to
function more effectively. Of course, in order
to do this the leader must be aware that the
hostility is not necessarily directed at him per-
sonally; it is just an inevitable consequence of
group activity that hostility does arise. If he
can absorb the hostility directly, it does not have
to he deflected into the group where it is most
tlestructive to the group and to the group's abil-
it\- to fulfill its purposes. An important part of
a leader's role is to be a scapegoat occasionally
in order that the group may proceed and operate
more efleetiveW. This situation brings to mind
an old saying, ",\ good king is one whose sub-
jeets prosper."
The Problem Member
Another frequently occurring group difficulty
ts the presence of a problem member, one of the
most difficult of all interpersonal prohlems for
a group to deal with. Problem memhers are of
two main types — the overactive member and
the underactive meiuher. Fither can disrupt
group functioning, and hoth are usually diffi-
cult to handle.
The overactive prohlem member dominates
the group's attention far more than his abilities
warrant. The dilTiculties arise partly because
the apparent intensit)' of bis feelings leads to a
general reluetanee of the group to hurt the indi-
vidual while at the same time they cannot cur-
tail his destructive activities. To illustrate what
can happen in such a situation:
Tn one five-man group of military personnel
working on a series of tactical problems, Mac im-
mediately took over control of the group. Because
he vvas reasonably competent and highly forceful,
he went unchallenged for several meetings. The
other group members were not \'ery compatible,
so they had a difficult time handling Mae. Gradu-
ally some members began losing interest in the
group until one discussion of a very trivial topic,
the postal rates from Washington to Chicago, came
up in one of their rest periods. Tbe exchange that
followed was amazing in that Mae was attacked
severely and at lengtTi by the other group mem-
bers for his dogmatically stated opinion about postal
rates. The group used this topic to veiit their
stored-up feelings toward Mac. By this time, how-
ever, the group had no resources to cope with these
strong feelings, and it quickly disintegrated after
the conflict.
The optimal solution to the prohlem repre-
sented hy tliis member is to liandle Tiini in such
a way that he can be retained in the group antl
his resources made use of and still not be al-
lowed to obstruct the group's functioning:
Another group had this problem vvith Bob. But
this group (]uiekly deposed Bob and set up a leader
of considerably less intellect but with superior co-
ordinating abilities. For a short time after they
had deposed Bob the group made sure he realized
he vvas not going to run the group; then they gradu-
ally allowed him baek into the group hy paying
more attention to his ideas. Finally, after about
ten meetings, his ideas were highly influential and
sought by tlie group, althougTi he vvas not allowed
to dominate. In this way the group took care of
the problem presented by an overactive memher
and was still able to utihzc his abilities. This is an
ideal solution and the sign of a strong, compatible
group.
Someone who will not become integrated into
tbe 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 is
to eject the member from the group. This is a
solution only insofar as it removes the souree of
a difficulty; it does not allow the group to utilize
the man's abilities. The prohlem iriemher often
serves a useful function by enabling other mem-
hers to direct their hostility toward him, so that
they do not have to deal with the real differences
among themselves. Thus, it is not unusual tbat
if a chronically negative member 1:; absent, the
group finds that it still has disagreements.
Framework for Behavior
Now that T have described exampTes of sev-
eraT interpersonal problem situations and various
reactions to tliein, I shall present a brief outline
of a theory of interpersonaT heliavior. Tn order
to deal with interpersonal hehavior it is neces-
sary to have an understanding of the general
principles of this hebavior, since formulas for
handling specific situations are of limited value
at best. The follovving theory is by no means the
only one extant in psychological literature, but
it 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 this
approaeh is that people need people. Every
human being, because he lives in a society, must
establish an equilihrium between himself and
his human environment — just as he must es-
tahlish an equilibrium between himself and the
physieal world. This social nature of man gives
rise to certain interpersonaT needs, whieh he
must satisfy to some degree while avoiding
threat to himself. Although eaeh individual has
different intensities of need and different mecha-
nisms for handling them, people have three basie
interpersonal needs in common:
The Need for Inelusioit. This is the need to
maintain a satisfactory relation hetwecn the self
and other people witTi respect to interaetion or be-
Tongingness. Some peopTe Tike to be with other
peopTe alT the time; they want to belong to organi-
zations, lo interact, to mingle. Other peopTe seek
mueh less contact; they prefer to be alone, to inter-
lulerpersonal Underworld 129
act minimally, to stay cut of groups, to maintain
privacy.
If a continuum were to be drawn between these
tw'o extremes, every pei'son coukl be placed at a
point (or region) at which he feels most comfort-
able. Thus, to a certain degree each individual is
trying to belong to a group, but he is also trying
to maintain a certain amount of privacy. From the
other point of view he wishes to some degree to
have people initiate interaetion toward him through
invitations and the like., and also wishes to some
degree that people would leave him alone. For
each dimension these two aspects may be distin-
guished: (i) the behavior he initiates toward oth-
ers, Iiis expressed behavior; and (2) the behavior
he prefers others to express toward him, his want-
ed behavior. This distinction will prove valuable in
the discussion of eompatihility,
The Need for Control. This is the need to
maintain a satisfactory relation between oneself
and other people vvith regard to power and influ-
ence. Tn other words, eiery individual has a need
to control his situation to some degree, so that his
environment can be predictable i'or him. Ordi-
narily this amounts to controlling other people,
because other people aie the main agents which
threaten Tiim and create an unpredictable and
uncontrollable situation. This need for eontrol
varies from those who want to control tlieir entire
environment, incTuding all the people around them,
to those who want to control no one in any situa-
tion, no matter how appropriate controlling them
would be.
Here, again, everyone varies as to the degree to
which he wants to control others. In addition,
everyone varies with respect to the degree to which
he wants to he controlled hy other people, from
those who want to he completely controlled and
are dependent on others for making decisions for
them to those who want to be eontrolled under
no conditions.
The Need for Affeetion. This is the need to
maintain a satisfactory relation between the self
and other people with regard to love and affection.
In the business setting this need is seldom made
overt. It takes tTie form of friendship. In essence,
affeetion is a relationship between two people only,
a dyadic relationship. At one extreme individuals
Tike very cTose, personal relationships with eaeh
individual they meet. At the other extreme are
those who like their personal relationships to be
quite impersonal and distant, perhaps friendly hut
not close and intimate.
Again, between these two extremes everyone has
a level of intimacy which is most comfortable for
him. From the other side, each individual prefers
that others make overtures to him in a way that
indicates a certain degree of closeness.
130 Harvard Business Reiieu'
l o clarilV the various orientations in ihcsc
three 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 8tHA'-lUF(
.Ti^TN-r Hl".i( rKil!Lr/t LOW
U N11 n * SOCIAL COUNTLRSOCIAL
OVCRPLHSONAI UNUf.HMfFJKONAL
Group Compatibility
This theory of interpersonal relations ean be
very useful to businessmen in determining the
compatibility ol' the members of a group. If at
the outset we ean ehoose a group of people who
ean work together harmoniously, we shall go far
toward 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 more
detail the two aspeets for each one of the three
interpersonal dimensions. One aspeet is what
we do with relation to other people; let us eall
this "e" for expressed hehaviof. The seeond is
what u c want Irom other people, how we want
them to act toward us; let us call this "w" for
wanted Ijchavior. Then we ean use "e" and "w"
to try to find out how people will relate to each
other 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.. B F H A \ 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 to
nine, 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 developed
a 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 resulting
scores for eaeh need area can be plotted on a
diagram, 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 two
well-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 EXHIBIT
rv might aid us in coming to a sensible resolution
of these maxims, since there seems to be some
truth in each of them:
Originator Diagonal. Let us take an example in
the control dimension and consider the lower right
to 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 anyone
else to tell them what to do. In tbe upper left
cjuiidrant we have just the opposite. These arc
abdicrat-submissives; they want to be told what to
do, and they do not want to eonlrol anyone else.
Fur .smooth functioning it would appear that if
we 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. This
is called eompetitive incompatibility. Also, if we
had two abdicrat-submissives, a situation would be
created wherein both people want someone to tell
them 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 be
harmonious, since one person nants to gi\e orders
and the other wants to take them.
JiitL-rchangc Diagonal. Now, consider the other
diagonal 011 the diagram. Let us take att'ection for
an example this time. In the upper right quadrant
are the people who express a lot of close personal
behavior and want the same expressed to them.
These are the people of "high interehange," and
they ean be called overpersonal-personal-compliants.
They like an atmosphere in wliicli there is a lot
of affeetion; so, for instanee, they woukl like a
party hcttcr than a bi»ard of directors meeting. In
 luterpersoiial Underworld 13 1
EXHIBIT III. S A M P L E O F QUESTIOP^NATRE

NAME.
GROUP
DATE
MALE
AGE
FEMALE,
FIRO-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 6. never
I I 2. 1 let other people decide what to do.
1, usiijily 2. often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally 5. rarely
I I 3. I join social groups.
^___^ !. usually 2. often ?. sometimes 4. occasionally 5. rarely 6. ne
I I 4. I try to have close relationships with people.
1. iiqi,i!Iy 2, often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally 5. rarely
5. i teed to ]oin social organizations when I have an opportunity.
I, uMially 2. often 3. sometime,^ 5. rarely ncicr
-.other people strongly influence my actions.
2, often 3. sometimes 4. occasionally 5. rarely 6. never

4. OCCTsil 5, rarely G. never

4. oi:c:isi( 5. rarely 6. iKvrr

I I 24, I lei other people control my acti
1, most
people 5. rarely 6. iicicr
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 3. some 4. a Ecu- 5. one i.r [W(j 6. nobudy
peoplt peoplt pcopk jifriple
I j 27. I try to have close, person,jl relationships with people,
]. mo^t 2. many 3. some 4. :i few 5. one or two 6. nobody
people people people people

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

the lower left quadrant arc people of "low inter- anyone. Tliey like tbeir relations rather reserved,
change," who like neither to give nor to receive at'- cool, and distant.
lection. They can be called iinderpersonal-counter- Here the complementary idea of the originator
personals. They do not want anyone to get very diagonal — that opposites attract — does not ap-
close to them, nor do they want to get very close to ply; for, if one person likes to be very close and
personal and the other person does not, they are
ExniurT iv. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF INTER-
going to threaten each other. One who likes to
PERSONAL DIMENSIONS
keep his relations reserved is not going to like it
when the other makes overtures; and, in the re-
RECEIVER ONLY HIGH INTERCHANGE verse direction, the one who wants very close rela-
\
tions is not going to be very happy if the other
\
s
y
docs not. So it seems reasonable that the situation
W»WANTED \ would lead to harmony more readily il:' the people
OTHER-TO-SELF
BEHAVIOR
N ^
s / A
involved were close on this diagonal, unlike the
e-EXPRESSED
0 \
y
9 situation on the originator diagonal.
SELF-TO-OTMER , ' In the inclusion d,!mension, again, it would be
BEHAVIOR Q , ' '
better if both interacting persons were very close
s to being cither very high or very low on this diag-
f
•>.

onal so that one would not always \vant to be with

LOW INTERCHANGE' ORIGINATOR ONLY people while tbe other wanted to stay home and
t.-)2 llamird^ Business Revieu'
read a book. Hence, on the intcrcliangc diasfonal
the "birds of a feather'' maxim seems most appro-
priate; people sbould be similar in their values
along this diagonal.
Predictable Relations
To 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 on
e"-' antl 5 on w*^', wbilc B has a score of i on c*' and
I 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,, and
bj,- and 1),, on tbe diagram.
Tbe measure of intert:bangc eompatibihlA' (\K)
of A autl B i-S proportional to tbe distance between
a,v and b,,. A smaller distance means a more simi-
lar orientation toward tbe amount of interebange
of eontrol tbat should exist in a relation. In tbe
example, A believes tbat relations sbould involve
a great deal of influence antl control, while B's
prefcrenee is for less structured, more laissez-faire
relations. Their incompatibility in tbis regard is
reflected in tbe relatively large distanee between
;(;, and b;^.
Originator compatibility (oK) is proportional to
tbe sum of a^ and b^. Optimal originator com-
patibility oecurs when one seore is to tbe left of the
midpoint of tbe diagonal and tbe otber seore is
exactly 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 eontrol
or 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 they
desire regarding mutual influence and eontrol. A
likes structured hierarchies while B prefers more
permissive relations. However, wben tbere is a
situation of a eertain strueture, tbey are compatible
witb regard to tbe roles they will take in relation
Lo eaeh other. A wdll take the influential, respon-
sible position, and B will take the subordinate role.
These psyehological considerations ean very
easily be convertetl into formulas, and in re-
search work and praetieal ap|ilieations tbis is
done. There ha\e heen several experiments }ier-
formed which indicate the usefulness of tins
approach. These experiments demonstrate that
groups of from two to eight can be composed —
based on FTRO-B scores — in sueh a way that
their 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 Development
Another 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 tbree
interpersonal pbases of inclusion, control, and
affection in the same se(|ucnee. To illustrate:
lleeently i «'as interviewing a member of a
group, wbieb Iiad just eompleteti 30 meetings, to
get 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 of
wbere \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. Your
primary eoneern becomes bow people ted about
you and about eaeb otber."
In or Out
First, 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 the
place where tbey lit in. This involves being in
or out of the group, establishing oneself as ii
specilic individual, and seeing if one is goin;^ to
be paid attention to and not be left behind or
ignored. This anxiety area gives rise to indi-
vidual-centered behavior sueh us overtalking,
extreme withdrawal, exhibitionism, recitation ot
biographies and other previous experienee.
At the same time the basic problem of eom-
niitnient to the group is present. Fach member
is implicitly deciding to \\hat degree he will
become 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 in
this setting? \M\\\ they know^ who I am antl
w^hat I can do, or will I be indistinguishable
from 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 — jnst
how much aetual contact, interaction, and com-
munieation he wishes to bave.
Hence, the main concerns of the formative
process iire "boundary pro];)lems," problems tbiit
' See William C, Schutz, op. cit.

ha\'c to do with entering into the houndaries
o( a group and hclonging to that group. These
arc problems ol' inclusion.
Characteristic ot' groups in this phase is the
occurrence ol: what have been called "goblet
isstics." The term is taken trom an analogy to
a cocktail party where people sometimes pick
tip their coektail glass, or goblet, and figuratively
peei- through it to size up the other people at
the party. Hence, they are issues that in them-
sehes are ol' minor importance to the group
meml)crs but serve as vehicles I'or getting to
know 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 an
issue continue for an unbelievably long time and
then ne\er reaeh a conclusion. But there has
heen a great deal of learning in that the metn-
hers have gained a i'airly clear picture of each
other. 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 what
type ol' role he can expect to play in the group.
Acquiring this knowledge is the unconscious
purpose of the goblet issue.
The frustrating experience of having groups
endlesslv diseuss topics of little real interest to
an\'one is very eommon. Every group finds
its o\\ n goblet issues within the framework of its
aim. "The weather" is fairly universal; "rules
of procedure' is common in formal groups; "!3o
you know so-and so?" often characterizes new
acquaintances from the same location; relating
incidents or telling stories has a goblet element
for business gatherings; and "\^%ere arc you
from?" often ser\os for military settings. Mark
Twain apparently overlooked the fact that no-
bo(h' really wants to "do anything ahout the
weather" — they just want to use it as a topic
for 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 of
testing out ^vill seareh lor some other method
of 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 been
suffieienth' resolved, control problems become
prominent. This phase centers around the proh-
Interpersonal Underworld 133
lem of "top or bottom." Once members are
fairly well established as being together in a
group, the issue of decision-making procedures
arises. This involves problems of sharing re-
sponsibility and its necessary concomitant, dis-
tribution of power it:Td eontrol. Characteristic
behavior 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 the
responsibility for the group's \\-ork. The primary
anxieties at this phase revolve around having
too much or too little responsibility and too
much or too little influence. Kaeh member is
trying to establish hi:nself in the group so that
he has the most comfortable amount of inter-
ehange and the most cotnfortable degree of
initiation with the oi:her members with regard
to control, influence, and responsibility.
Near or Far
1 inally, following a satisfactory resolution of
these phases, problems of affection become fo-
cal. This phase centers on the issue of "near
or far." The individuals have come together to
form 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, direct
personal hostility, jealousies, pairing behavior,
and, in general, heightened emotional feeling
between pairs of people.
The primary anxieties at this stage have to
do with not being lilted or close enough to peo-
ple or with being to:) intimate. Each member
is striving to obtain his most favorable amount
of ail'ectional interchange and most eomfortable
position 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 group
development postulate asserts that these prob-
lem areas arc ei}!phasized at certain points in
a group's growth, hut all three problem areas
are always present. Similarly, some people do
not always go along with the eentral issue for
the group. For eertain individuals a particular
prol)lem area will be so personally potent that
it will transcend the current group issue. The
area of eoneern for any individual will result
134 Harvard Business Review
from his own problem areas and those of the
group'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 the
wheel, he first sets the wheel in place a?id secures
it by tightening the bulLs one after another just
enough so the wheel is in place and the next step
can be taken. Then the holts are tightened further,
usually in the same .sequence, until the wheel is
firmly in place. Finally each bolt is gone over sepa-
rately to seeure it.
In a similar way, the need areas arc worked
on until they are handled satisfaetorily enough
to continue with the work at hand. Later on
they are returned to and worked over to a more
satisfaetory degree. If one need area has not
been worked out well on the first sequence, it
must receive more attention on the next cycle.
/Vpplicalions oi Theory
The next ([uestion is: What can we do about
these problems so as to utilize this information
practically? This is more difficult. The above
analysis is derived largely from experience with
experimental research on small groups selected
for this purpose. Solutions for the problems
observed are largely, though not entirely, specu-
lative and can only be offered as suggestions
whieh 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 for
diagnosis. The more men in business can be-
come aware of the basie faetors underlying their
interpersonal difficulties, the better they will be
able 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 curing
it than if it is improperly or superficially diag-
nosed, even though a eorrect diagnosis by no
means guarantees a cure.
Clearing the Air
Serious interjiersonal difficulties that arc lelt
covert only smolder and erupt at the expense of
effieieney and productivity. The most effective
way covert difficulties can be dealt with is by
lirst making them overt. For example:
In one marketing group, tlie leader finally told
one mcmljcr thai lie did not like the way he was
acting 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 their
feelings about the situation. They managed to
clear the air, and the situation improved marketliy.
When successful, overt discussion is like a
cold 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 arc
withdrawn from a group; personal hostilities
between members; problem mcm!)crs who are
either inaetive and unintcgrated or overaetive
and destructive; power struggles between group
members; 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 their
activity is being impaired, then bringing the
issues out into the open and talking about them
will help. It is somewhat difficult, ho'svever, to
tell cxaetly i^hen a problem is so severe that it
is holding the group up. Perhaps some of tlie
earlier discu.ssion ol" symptoms will be useful
for assessing the effect of interpersonal factors
on the group.
It might be helpful to view groups (including
anywhere from two to twent)' people) on a con-
tinuum — from those that arc eompletely com-
patible, that is, tible to work well together, to
those that are completely incompatible, that is.
ineapable of \\orking together. Any particular
group 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 well
together within a relatively short time with a mini-
mum of: difficulty and can operate effectively over
a 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 will
be 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 group
jiicmbcrs or ;)iiy awareness of their problems would
he unfruitful.
Between these two extreme tvpcs arc groups that
profit more or less by the kind oi' awareness whieh

has been discussed. If a group is relatively near
the compatible end, with a minimum, of awareness
and 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 the
group seriously; or, if the problems exist between
two members, they ean often work out their diffi-
culties by themselves outside the group.
With groups near the incompatible end much
more intensive work has to he done to get through
their problems so that they can function effective-
ly. Sueh work should probably he guided hy some-
one who is experienced with group process and can
help group memhers to work out their difficulties.
Another advantage of this approach operates
more through the individuals than the group.
If the individual members can gain the kind of
awareness of their own needs in situations as
discussed in this article, then this in itself will
help them to understand their reactions to other
people and, perhaps, to operate more eff'ectively.
In addition, it is often helpful to point out to
group members that other people have the same
basic needs; for, if they understand what other
people 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 the
same thing from other people, even though each
may use different adaptive patterns for achiev-
ing his ends. To illustrate such a mechanism:
It generally is felt that if an individual has an
excessively strong negative reaction to another in-
dividual in the setting of a work group, the indi-
vidual who is irritated fears deep down within
himself 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 other
individual, and he must immediately deny it and
attack it. almost as if he were trying to deny to
himself that he is like this.
Awareness of mechanisms of this type may
help in understanding what is happening in the
group 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, or
covert, factors in human interaction. Since the
businessman 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 a
more basie understanding instead of simply try-
ing out panaeeas that aim only at the symptoms
of the problems and not at the basie problems
themsehes. He must understand the vast inter-
personal underworld that operates beneath the
overt, observable behavior.
As I have already pointed out, current inter-
est in what are called "communications proh-
lems" provides an example of the symptomatic
approach, for these problems are symptoms of
poor interpersonal relations rather than primary
causes of operational difficulties. It is an error,
therefore, to try to attack the problems of eom-
munieation hy buildirg more effective physical
lines of communieation, when the trouble really
lies in the relation between individuals. The
way to attack the basic problem would seem to
be to investigate what is going on among the in-
dividuals themselves and try to improve those
relations.
If it is true that the unconscious factors are
so all-important to understanding groups, then
we ought to find out exaetly how these factors
do 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 ignoring
interpersonal diffieulties and attending to the
task only, since in reality the interpersonal fae-
tors somehow find their way into the task and
directly affect the productivity of the group.
No matter how mueh people try to keep inter-
personal problems out: by ignoring them, they
will turn up in subtle forms such as loss of
motivation, tiredness, or the group member's
preoccupation with outside tasks; or they may
get entangled directly with the solution of the
task and have to be worked out in the body of
the problem.
I have offered a theoretical framework which
may bo of some help in understanding the struc-
ture of these interpersonal problems in an at-
tempt to aid in the diagnosis of interpersonal
behavior. Sueh a diagnosis may then leave the
busine.ssman in a better position to deal with
what aetually occurs. I have tried to suggest
possible lines of solution, but these attempts are
offered in a mueh more speculative manner.
Although they are based on rather extensive ex-
perience with psychological phenomena, they
are only suggestions that the individual business-
man must try out and adapt to his own needs.