Applied behavioral scientists spend most of their consulting time with single groups or organizations dealing with matters of communications, problem solving, organizational structure, interpersonal relations, and so forth. This paper focuses on the problems which develop when two organizations are joined to create one functioning unit. There is a small but growing body of literature' that is concerned with merging organizations. Although the major emphasis of what is written is on financial matters, Kitching (1967) focuses on matters of management and organization, albeit not in great detail. His data indicated that in 8i per cent of the merger "failures" reported, reporting relationships were unclear and there was a tendency to change them often. He also suggests the necessity of having competent "managers of change" and of setting up unambiguous reporting relationships in the newly formed organizational structure. The financial and economic components of mergers are part of a total mix of problems that includes such things as expectations about norm development, role changes, leadership style, decision-making processes, and goal orientation. It is with these factors that this paper is concerned. The format is that of a case study of a merger situation in which the writers were involved.

No abstract

In this article, personal reflections, leading to the notion of the craft not art, not Science of educational administration are set forth. Following a growing personal disenchantment with the science of administration and a consideration of adminstration as an art, the craft aspects of administrative work became apparent to the author. The implications of conceiving of administration as a craft for preparation programs are then discussed in the light of this view of administrative practice.

This study has two central themes, both relevant to application of the behavioral sciences in "real-life situations." First, considerable psychological trauma can be generated by events such as the demotions reported here. Second, substantial evidence suggests that a learning design based on the laboratory approach can significantly moderate such trauma. Methodological problems prevent our assigning all observed effects to the learning design, but there is strong presumptive evidence that this action design is one way to apply in organizations the forces often observed in the development of the miniature societies that are T Groups.

The "confrontation technique" has been used successfully in training designs in complex organizations, and this study at once reinforces and extends existing experience. Specifically, what follows is a report on an application of the technique that induced favorable attitudinal changes in the marketing area of a large firm. The similarities of this study with existing ones encompass both design and results. Basically, the design required the exchange of "images" between individuals or organization units. The public sharing of these data apparently reduced the amount of "unfinished business," freed up organization members, and led to favorable attitudinal changes on a variety of before/after comparisons. Thus the study is consistent with a growing major emphasis in the contemporary literature. Numerous observers have cited the necessity and positive consequences of "confronting" in organizations (Davis,:1967; Greiner, 1967, pp. 66-70; Lorsch, 1965, pp. 95-110). Several change agents have successfully varied the basic design of confronting persons in complex organizations with data about how they are seen by some significant others. As in this case, to note one variety of design, the participants may do the actual image building and communicating (Beckhard, 1967; Blake, Mouton, & Sloma, 1965). More or less oppositely, the consultant can play a more active role by interviewing and then synthesizing an image to be communicated to the client system (Argyris, 1962, 1967). A range of variations lies somewhere between these two types (Benedict, Calder, Callahan, Hornstein, & Miles, 1966; Miles, Calder, Hornstein, Callahan, & Schiavo, 1966). Also the design and results of this study are distinguished from other reports in the literature, particularly in four senses. First, the present training experience deals with several functionally related departments. Second, the design encompasses several hierarchical levels down to the first level of field supervision. (Other efforts in the literature tend to deal with two major groups, e.g., labor and management, and apparently with only a few levels of organization toward or at the top.) Third, an unusually wide variety of data was gathered in the present training design. Only gross attitudinal changes in the total population are reported here; i.e., the gross focus here is on changes in how everyone saw everyone else at time, and time2. But the cooperation of the participants permits a range of analysis broader than that of existing reports in the literature. Fourth, the confrontation experience was part of a large and longrange program of organization change. In contrast, existing reports tend to deal with ad hoc efforts.