Aspects of the relationships between state college and university representatives and state coordinating councils, and forms of intragroup behavior are considered. It is suggested that within an interorganizational paradigm, knowledge of and ability in interagency coordination may be crucial to the future of higher education. Higher education is likely to face changes in organizational functioning brought about through mandates of pressures generated by the various power sources in their respective states. The institution must identify a person to represent the organization, and the situation of sending representatives to an intergroup transaction between institution and state government results in the establishment of different kinds of relationships. Attention is directed to the interaction between the institution's representative(s) and other persons or groups in the institution and the relationships between institution members. Institutional representatives may expect their efforts and accomplishments to be denigrated and misunderstood by those whom they represent. The distrust of one's representatives may be indicative of the multistep process of information boundary planning. The interaction among and between institution members when group representatives are absent may be influenced by three kinds of basic assumption group activity proposed by Bion (1961): dependence, fight-flight, and pairing. It is suggested that institutions can support and encourage representatives in recognizing and understanding the role that boundaries play in the life of all groups and the problems of boundary crossing that develop when one group interacts with another. Institutions can also seek ways of helping membership retain a sense of the primary mission of the institution. (SW)