Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save


Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

A study of job satisfaction and conflict resolution modes in the minda group


A study of job satisfaction and conflict resolution modes in the minda group

A study of job satisfaction and conflict resolution modes in the minda group

Published in Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. A STUDY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION MODES IN THE MINDA GROUP Submitted for the partial fulfillment of Master of Business Administration (MBA)
  • 3. INTRODUCTION Conflict always arises in the real world — it is unavoidable. It is way in which conflict is handled that makes the difference. A healthy work environment is one that can resolve conflicts peacefully by finding a win-win solution. In many cases, conflict in the workplace just seems to be a fact of life. There are several situations where different people with different goals and needs have come into conflict. And this often-intense personal animosity can result in disaster. In many cases, effective conflict resolution skills can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes. Resolving conflict effectively can lead to personal and professional growth, along with: • Increased understanding: The discussion needed to resolve conflict expands people's awareness of the situation, giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people; • Increased group cohesion: When conflict is resolved effectively, team members can develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in their ability to work together; and • Improved self-knowledge: Conflict pushes individuals to examine their goals in close detail, helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness. However, if conflict is not handled effectively, the results can be damaging. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike. Teamwork breaks down. Talent is wasted as people disengage from their work. And it is easy to end up in a vicious downward spiral of negativity and recrimination. Research shows that employee job satisfaction depends very much on how the organization handles conflicts with the co-workers in the work environment. One of the most common reasons employees cited for leaving a job is unresolved conflict in the work environment — resulting in employee turnover, dissatisfaction and low productivity. Organization leaders are responsible for creating a work environment that enables people to thrive. If turf wars, conflicts, disagreements and differences of opinion escalate into interpersonal conflict, they must intervene immediately. Conflict resolution is essential and critical for employee satisfaction, which helps improve performance, 3
  • 4. turnover, and absenteeism. Locke gives a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as involving cognitive, affective and evaluative reactions or attitudes and states it is “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience.” Job satisfaction is a result of employees’ perception of how well their job provides those things that are viewed as important. It is generally recognized in the organizational behavior field that job satisfaction is the most important and frequently studied attitude. Although recent theoretical analyses have criticized job satisfaction as being too narrow conceptually, there are three generally accepted dimensions to job satisfaction. First, job satisfaction is an emotional response to a job situation. As such, it cannot be seen; it can only be inferred. Second, job satisfaction is often determined by how well outcomes meet or exceed expectations. For example, if organizational participants feel that they are working much harder than others in the department but are receiving fewer rewards, they will probably have a negative attitude toward the work, the boss, and / or coworkers. They will be dissatisfied. On the other hand, if they feel they are being treated very well and are being paid equitably, they are likely to have a positive attitude toward the job. They will be job-satisfied. Third, job satisfaction represents several related attitudes. Through the years five job dimensions have been identified to represent the most important characteristics of a job about which employees have affective responses. These include- The work itself: The extent to which the job provides the individual with interesting task, opportunities for learning, and the chance to accept responsibility Pay: The amount of financial remuneration that is received and the degree to which this is viewed as equitable vis-à-vis that of others in the organization Promotion opportunities: The chances for advancement in the organization Supervision: The abilities of the supervisor to provide technical assistance and behavioral support Coworkers: The degree to which fellow workers are technically proficient and socially supportive 4
  • 5. Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. It is a relatively recent term since in previous centuries the jobs available to a particular person were often predetermined by the occupation of that person's parent. The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Job satisfaction is not the same as motivation, although it is clearly linked. Job design aims to enhance job satisfaction and performance, methods include job rotation, job enlargement and job enrichment. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous work groups. Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job; an affective reaction to one’s job; and an attitude towards one’s job. Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviours. This definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings, our beliefs, and our behaviors. One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924-1933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers’ productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction. Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift 5
  • 6. from skilled labor and piecework towards the more modern approach of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylor’s work. Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life – physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories. Models of job satisfaction Affect Theory Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet. 6
  • 7. Dispositional Theory Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction. A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge argued that there are four Core Self-evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction: self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over herhis own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction. Two-Factor Theory (Motivator-Hygiene Theory) Frederick Herzberg’s Two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) [5] attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction. These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Motivating factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions. While Hertzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Hertzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact. Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting 7
  • 8. all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors. [5] . Finally, the model has been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured. Job Characteristics Model Hackman & Oldham proposed the Job Characteristics Model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.). The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors. A meta- analysis of studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM. Job Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a predictor of work behaviours such as organizational citizenship, absenteeism, and turnover. Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors. Conflict resolution is the process of attempting to resolve a dispute or a conflict. Successful conflict resolution occurs by listening to and providing opportunities to meet each side's needs, and adequately address their interests so that they are each satisfied with the outcome. Conflict Practitioners talk about finding the win-win outcome for parties involved, vs. the win-lose dynamic found in most conflicts. While 'conflict resolution' engages conflict once it has already started , 'conflict prevention' aims to end conflicts before they start or before they lead to verbal, physical, or legal fighting or violence. Conflict itself has both positive and negative outcomes. Practitioners in the field of 8
  • 9. Conflict Resolution aim to find ways to promote the positive outcomes and minimize the negative outcomes. There is a debate in the field of conflict work as to whether or not all conflicts can be resolved, thus making the term conflict resolution one of contention. Other common terms include Conflict Management, Conflict Transformation and Conflict Intervention. Conflict management, can be the general process in which conflict is managed by the parties toward a conclusion, however it is also referred to as a situation where conflict is a deliberate personal, social and organizational tool, especially used by capable politicians and other social engineers. Conflict resolution processes can vary. However group conflict usually involves two or more groups with opposing views regarding specific issues, often another group or individual (mediator or facilitator) who is considered to be neutral (or suppressing biases) in their opinion on the subject. This last bit though is quite often not entirely demanded if the "outside" group is well respected by all opposing parties. Resolution methods can include conciliation, mediation, arbitration or litigation. These methods all require third party intervention. A resolution method which is direct between the parties with opposing views is negotiation. Negotiation can be the 'traditional' model of hard bargaining where the interests of a group far outweigh the working relationships concerned. The 'principled' negotiation model is where both the interests and the working relationships concerned are viewed as important. Often, face saving and other intangible goals play a role in the success of negotiation. It may be possible to avoid conflict without actually resolving the underlying dispute, by getting the parties to recognize that they disagree but that no further action needs to be taken at that time. In many cases such as in a democracy, a dialogue may be the prefered process in which it may even be desirable that they disagree, thus exposing the issues to others who need to consider it for themselves: in this case the parties might agree to disagree and agree to continue the dialogue on the issue. It is also possible to manage a conflict without resolution, in forms other than avoidance. As organizations continue to restructure to work teams, the need for training in conflict 9
  • 10. resolution will grow. Conflict arises from differences, and when individuals come together in teams, their differences in terms of power, values, and attitudes contribute to the creation of conflict. To avoid the negative consequences that can result from disagreements, most methods of resolving conflict stress the importance of dealing with disputes quickly and openly. Conflict is not necessarily destructive, however. When managed properly, conflict can result in benefits for a team. A major advantage a team has over an individual is its diversity of resources, knowledge, and ideas. However, diversity also produces conflict. As more and more organizations restructure to work teams the need for training in conflict resolution will continue to grow. Varney (1989) reports that conflict remained the number-one problem for most of the teams operating within a large energy company, even after repeated training sessions on how to resolve conflict and how to minimize the negative impact on team members. One reason for this may be that mangers and other leaders within organizations are not giving the issue of resolving conflict enough attention. Varney's research showed that although most managers are aware of disagreements and have received training in conflict resolution, they seldom assign a high priority to solving conflict problems. With this in mind, it is critical that team members possess skills to resolve conflict among themselves. It is against this background that research has been undertaken on job satisfaction and conflict resolutions modes that have been adopted by the Minda Group. The constructs that have been used here are: Job Satisfaction Survey by Dr. Amar Singh and Dr. T. R. Sharma (1999) to measure the job satisfaction levels of the top management, and Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument for conflict resolution. Top management is defined as the team of individuals at the highest level of management who play a key role in setting the organizational objectives and designing the strategy for achieving them through effective planning of financial and human resources. 10
  • 11. ABOUT THE COMPANY: THE MINDA GROUP The NK Minda Group is India's foremost manufacturer of a range of automotive components and is a leading supplier to global Original Equipment Manufacturers. The Group's product portfolio comprises of Switches, Batteries, Lighting, Horns, Mirrors and Alternate Fuel Kits - LPG / CNG Fuel Kits. NK Minda Group has an annual turnover of Rs.5.45 billion (USD 121 million). The Group has been clocking a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 40% in Annual Turnover (ATO). From Rs. 3.57 billion in FY 2004-5, it grew to Rs. 545 crores during F.Y. 2005-06. Today, the Group has a total of 19 plants spread across India and Indonesia. Recognizing the importance of the ASEAN market the group has set up a Greenfield manufacturing facility in Indonesia through a group company named PT Minda ASEAN Automotive which has commenced production and exports to other ASEAN countries. NK Minda Group works with the leading auto components specialists globally to bring the most technologically advanced products to its customers. The Group has joined hands with global leaders to constantly fine-tune its offerings and has some of the most reputed automotive component manufacturers as its joint-venture partners such as: Tokai Rika Co. Ltd., Japan and Fiamm SpA, Italy. Mr. S.L. Minda, Chairman, founded the Minda Group in 1958. He began with a small team of five people and the vision of becoming a leading player in the automotive components industry. His pioneering efforts have culminated into the Minda Group becoming a diversified, customer oriented, multi-product and multi-location organization. Under the dynamic leadership of Mr. Nirmal K. Minda, who took over as the Managing Director in the year 1995, the NK Minda Group has grown manifold. Today, it employs around 4000 people in 18 manufacturing facilities spread across India and 1 in Indonesia. Over the years, NK Minda Group has acquired a customer base that includes the who's 11
  • 12. who of the automotive sector in India and around the world. Source: LOCATION OF PLANTS IN INDIA 12
  • 13. Source: PRODUCTS OF MINDA GROUP 13
  • 14. GROUP VISION The Group Sales to be Rs 17.50 billion by 2009-10 Our Group be pioneer and be global benchmark in QPCDSM and Technology Exports to reach 25% of total turnover (excl. PTMA sales, FMAL) MISSION To continually enhance stakeholders’ value through global competitiveness while contributing to society. CORE VALUES NK Minda Group has identified 5 core values and works towards inculcating these in its day-to-day working: - Customer Is Supreme: Understand and anticipate customer needs and exceed their expectations; aggressively pursue new business, determined to add value for customers with ingenuity, determination and a positive approach to every task, a `can-do` spirit Live Quality: Nurture quality as an attitude; apply quality minded approach to everything; passionate about quality and its continuous improvement through teamwork Encourage Creativity and Innovation to drive 3Ps (People, Processes and Products): Demonstrate leadership by advancing new technologies, innovative manufacturing techniques, enhanced customer service, inspired management, and the application of best practices throughout the organization; utilize their ability to combine strength with speed in responding enthusiastically to every new opportunity and every new challenge; encourage and inspire learning amongst our people Respect for Individual: Strongly believe that employees are the most valued assets of the company, and they are essential participants with a shared responsibility in fulfilling their mission; inspire, empower and enable people to achieve high expectations, standards and opportunity and every new challenge; support mutually beneficial and enduring relationships with our stakeholders; treat all people with dignity and courtesy Respect for Work-Place Ethics: work smartly with passion, integrity, conviction and 14
  • 15. commitment; work in team with a shared purpose and value individual ability and diversity as essential to promote harmony and open communication; respect and adhere to company policies, systems and procedures; respect the values and cultures of the communities where operating. People work best when there is a sense of ownership and the feeling that it is a collaborative effort. Their philosophy is to empower each individual to take his own decisions in his defined field, so that he can add to the growth. At NK Minda Group, there is an emphasis on self-governance and the Group has chosen to create flatter structures. By unleashing employee creativity, responsibility and productivity, the effort has been to harness the positive energies into making NK Minda Group a people oriented organization. NK Minda Group has a number of companies, each of which takes pride in being professionally driven. The organization is divided into different companies or Strategic Business Units (SBUs), and each SBU head has the overall responsibility for his operations. The key mantras that have propelled the Minda Group are: Its relentless pursuit for excellence, benchmarking, focus on developing world-class facilities, emphasis on providing innovative design solutions, continuous thrust on product improvement and constant upgradation of skill sets in the workforce. 15
  • 16. GROUP COMPANIES MINDA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Minda Industries Limited is the flagship company of the Minda Group. It designs, develops and manufactures switches for 2/3 wheelers and off-road vehicles. In addition, Minda Industries Limited manufactures batteries for 2/3/4 wheelers and off-road vehicles. Minda Industries already enjoys more than 70% market share in the 2/3 wheeler segment in India and is amongst the top few globally. Today, Minda Industries is over Rs. 4.51 billion (USD 111.45 million) company and is on a rapid expansion spree. It is geared to take on global competition and has already made inroads into the ASEAN market. Minda Industries is on its way to becoming the favoured vendor for 2/3 wheeler switches globally. Minda Industries Limited has established 8 state of the art facilities spread across the length & breadth of India and one in the ASEAN region and employs more than 2800 people. MIL LIGHTING The Lighting division of Minda Industries Limited develops and manufactures world- class lighting products for 2/3 wheelers, off-roaders and 4 wheeler vehicles. Its annual sales for 2005-2006 were over Rs. 904 million (USD 22.32 million). At the Lighting division, the emphasis is on rapid development of new products. The mix of excellent resource planning, latest infrastructure, skilled manpower and high technological competence helps the company in its mission to manufacture globally competitive products. The Lighting Division of Minda has 3 state of the art, fully equipped manufacturing facilities based at Manesar, Pune & Sonepat and employ around 500 people. Lighting products are intrinsic to the very design of the vehicle. Whether it is the aesthetics or the safety aspects, the focus of any new vehicle design is on the placement of head, tail and side lamps. Specialized facilities for "Concurrent Engineering" are 16
  • 17. available at Minda Lighting Division, wherein the involvement of the company begins right from the concept stage of a new vehicle by the OEMs. As customers develop new designs of vehicles, Minda assists in simultaneously engineering and designing the lighting products. These are also modeled and prototyped alongside. The company has developed well-defined processes that minimize the lead time required for prototype development. A clearly defined road map identifies customer requirements, then moves to styling design, 3 D model design, optical design and rapid prototyping. Once the prototype has been developed, tooling, vehicle trials and fitments take place. Before mass production, engineering tests and prior runs ensure high quality products and optimization of resources. MINDARIKA Mindarika Pvt. Limited, with Rs. 1.30 billion (USD 32.12 million) in revenue, is India’s largest four wheeler automotive switch manufacturer. Mindarika Pvt. Limited has consciously evolved into a complete design and development centre for four wheeler automotive switches. It offers customized solutions to the automotive industry in the realm of product improvisation and new product development and has very strong localization capabilities. The core strengths at Mindarika are skilled manpower, adherence to the highest quality standards and providing cost effective solutions. MINDA FIAMM Minda Fiamm Acoustic Limited is a Joint Venture between Minda Industries Limited and Fiamm S.p.A, Italy to produce 2/3 wheeler automotive horns. The Rs. 450 million (USD 11.11 million) company has manufacturing facilities in Delhi, Gurgaon and Pantnagar and employs over 300 people. Today, Minda Fiamm is the leader player in the Indian automotive horn industry. It offers customized products and solutions for a range of automotive acoustic problems. Minda Fiamm utilizes the experience of its joint venture partner, FIAMM S.p.A. of Italy, to offer R&D expertise and capabilities to the Indian customer. This experience combined with the mathematical and technical aptitude of Indian workforce makes Minda Fiamm a company manufacturing globally competitive products in the automotive horn industry. 17
  • 18. FIAMM MINDA FMAL is a Joint Venture of Fiamm S.p.A with NK Minda Group. FMAL was established in July 2004 as a part of Fiamm’s global manufacturing strategy and with a view to enhance Fiamm’s presence in India and other ASEAN Markets. FMAL services the requirements of Fiamm’s global customers such as General Motors, Ford, PSA, Renault, BMW, DC, Mazda and major domestic customers like Ford India, General Motors India, Maruti, Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland. FMAL has established a production capacity of 17 million horns/ annum and FMAL vision is to supply at least 40% requirement of Fiamm’s global OE customers. MINDA AUTOGAS Minda Autogas Limited began as Minda Impco Limited - a Joint Venture between NK Minda Group and Impco Technologies Inc, USA. In April 2006, Impco, as part of their global strategy, decided to exit all Joint ventures including the one in India. Today the Rs.754 million (USD 18.62 million) Minda Autogas Limited is a fully owned company of the NK Minda Group. Minda Autogas provides CNG / LPG kits and other alternative fuel solutions to various OEMs and the replacement market. Minda Autogas has been supplying Maruti Udyog Limited with the LPG kits for Wagon R Duo. With the emphasis on providing eco-friendly solutions interfacing usage of greener fuels, Minda Autogas has carved a niche for itself in the growing field of alternative fuel technologies and has the following capabilities: To design & develop new products from the conceptualization stage to manufacturing; to offer technical know-how for improving existing products; to address quality and warranty issues. The Company’s Vision is to be a Rs. 1 billion company by 2008-2009 and to be the preferred supplier of alternate fuel kits to the Indian Market. Its significant achievements include: OE supplier for Bajaj Auto Ltd for their 3 wheelers; Suppliers of LPG Kits to Maruti Udyog Limited for their Wagon R Duo; the only 18
  • 19. company in the organized sector in India having full fledged manufacturing facilities for alternate fuel kits. SWITCH MASTERS LIMITED Minda automotive components are available to OEMs directly through the individual Minda Group Companies. For the replacement market and for retail customers, these products are available through a dedicated sales and service company called Switch Masters Limited (SML). Established in 1985, SML is the Sales and servicing arm for the Minda group in the replacement market. SML builds upon the competitive advantage of Minda Group products through its countrywide distribution network of 250 dealers spread across 91 A, B and C category cities, covering the 2 wheeler as well as 4 wheeler business segments. SML's product range spans approx. 2500 parts and components that it procures from 15 countrywide supply points, and in turn distributes to its dealer network through 18 Depots in all major states of the country. The sales efforts are supplemented by field staff strength of 36 Sales Officers and Area Managers located in key markets, and 40 Missionary Sales Representatives for grass roots level demand generation. The goodwill and acceptance that Minda products have in the market is a direct result of the emphasis on quality and the excellent sales and service backup provided by the Switch Masters field force and network, recognized as amongst the best in the industry. SML’s Vision is to create a Distribution network recognized as an industry benchmark, and provide effective Sales as well as After Sales Service/Support to Minda Customers throughout the country. It is in the process of setting up a 3 tier distribution network encompassing prominent retailers and garages/mechanics/electricians to supplement the existing dealer setup; this initiative is expected to grow the SML network exponentially to cover over 15,000 outlets by the year 2009-10. As part of its domestic expansion plans, SML will soon take on selling and servicing of a range of vehicle Electronic Security Systems and Automotive Batteries for 2 wheelers as well as 4 wheelers, for which expansion of the dealer network to cover Vehicle Accessory Dealers and Retailers is also in the offing. SML also has aggressive plans to grow internationally, through the conventional Exports route, as well as through the development of its own infrastructure 19
  • 20. and facilities in key geographies worldwide, in an attempt to tap the vast and growing global after market for automotive components. PT MINDA ASEAN Recognizing the importance of the ASEAN market, the Minda Group has set up a Greenfield manufacturing facility in Indonesia through a company named PT Minda ASEAN Automotive. The project that was conceptualized in October 2004 began its production in Indonesia in December 2005. Today PT Minda ASEAN boasts of a state of the art manufacturing facility in Indonesia. In a short span, the ASEAN venture started to acquire renowned ASEAN OEM customers and is today exporting to Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines & Thailand. The product range comprises of switches and locks for two wheelers and is going to start manufacturing other Group product lines. 20
  • 21. FACILITIES ENGINEERING The focus at the NK Minda Group is on collaborative designing with the OEMs. The Group has the capability to improvise existing products as well as offer cost-effective solutions for products already available in the market. With strong focus on R&D, the company has been constantly evaluating and employing emerging technologies to benefit its customers. NK Minda Group provides its customers with all the facilities under one roof be it design and development, prototyping, testing, validation and quality, or manufacturing the final product. At the NK Minda Group, the USP is an association with the customer right from the concept stage to black box design and development of new products. The company has the competencies and resources to create products and solutions for specific customer requirements. Styling & Designing NK Minda Group has two design studios located at Manesar & Pune with top-of-the-line CAD-CAM software with 68 dedicated CAD seats, with more than 100 experienced and technically competent product designers and well-developed facilities to create the latest innovative designs for the customers. The company has 50 Workstations of PRO-E Wildfire 2 and is the largest user of the same among Tier-1 suppliers in India. It also has 13 Workstations of I-DEAS 10 NX. Some of the finest design softwares like PRO – Engineer Wildfire II, I-DEAS Simulation NX 12, Alias, Rhinoceros, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator and Imageware are used by the designers to produce the designs best suited to customer requirements. These softwares are extensively used for 3D styling and to check the surface details, assembly, mating parts and seamless movements. The concept design goes through well designed processes that include Hand sketch, followed by Computer Graphics using Photoshop. Clay Modeling and Wood Modeling follow and once these have been approved, rapid prototyping of the product development 21
  • 22. takes place. The various methods used are SLA, SLS, FDM, Vacuum Casting, Silicon moulding, 4Investment Casting, Manual Prototyping and CNC Machining. This is followed by fitment trials. The Simulations – Thermal / Optical /Others as required are undertaken to ensure optimum performance of the component. An important part of the designing process is the involvement of the customer right from the initial stages. The tool design team ensures that seamless integration of 3D and CAD takes place with Product Design, maintaining bi-directional associativity, tool design and tool manufacturing. All tooling and die casting is also undertaken in-house, and over 300 dies and tools have been created. The special Tool design infrastructure includes more than 20 dedicated tool engineers spread across two locations, Manesar & Pune, dedicated CAD CAM seats with software like Pro-Engineer Wildfire 11, Ideas NX 12, Moldflow analysis & Plastic Mold Advisor. This ensures that seamless integration of tool designing with manufacturing takes place. Production Engineering enhancements ensure that the manufacturing process is smoother, quicker and has seamless movement right from design & development to producing the final products. This includes emphasis on Process Design, JIG / Equipment Design, JiG / Equipment Manufacturing and Assembly Line improvements like single piece movement, etc. Before each component goes for final fitment, it is subjected to an exhaustive range of tests to check and recheck the proper working of the component in extreme conditions. A special battery of tests are conducted. Each NK Minda Group component goes through voltage drop & high voltage tests, insulation test, operating torque and operating load test to ensure that electrical problems cannot hamper its performance. Environmental tests like Dust resistance, water shower, corrosion resistance, dry and damp heat tests, cold and rapid temperature change tests, ensure that the external conditions also do not impede the functioning of the component. N Minda Group has advanced product quality planning 22
  • 23. through FMEA, QFD, MSA, and Product & Process Validation activities. The company also emphasizes on statistical process control for minimizing defects. Illustrations of work in progress at their Engineering facilities: 23
  • 24. MANUFACTURING NK Minda Group has its manufacturing plants across 19 locations in the world – 18 in India and 1 in Indonesia and has over 4000 employees. All manufacturing related infrastructure is available in-house. Top of the line equipment like high pressure die- casting machines, vertical and horizontal injection molding machine, automated powder coating plant, press shop, CNC and 4 tracks are used for the manufacturing process. NK Minda Group has dedicated assembly lines for each customer. The work environment is totally dust-free and the company uses Japanese concepts extensively. Equipment Each Minda product carries with it the Minda seal of quality. NK Minda group keeps itself abreast of the latest manufacturing advancements globally. In keeping with this the latest and the most technologically advanced equipment from the best vendors is sourced so that the each NK Minda Group product can set a global standard. Top of the line equipment like high pressure die-casting machines, vertical and horizontal injection molding machines, automated powder coating plant, press shop, CNC are used for the manufacturing process. The NK Minda group has Injection moulding machines of 35 T to 1100 T capacity. 65 moulding machines ensure that multiple products can be worked on simultaneously. 55 Horizontal and 10 Vertical moulding machines ensure that deadlines are met and quality products are created. In the Group facilities, there are 27 Press shop machines available from the capacity of 5 T to 250 T. Again Die-casting 24
  • 25. machines of 150 T to 250 T capacity assist in ensuring excellent quality time after time. Surface coating equipment includes 4 Vacuum Metallizing machines, 3 Aluminum Painting machines, 5 Powder Coating Plants and 1 Plating plant. Each customer has dedicated assembly lines which are designed for single piece flow as well as easy material movement, Poka Yoke is well established. In addition other specially developed processes and equipments undertake offline scrutiny in order to present a flawless solution to the customer. The latest Conveyorised handle bar assembly has been installed at Minda Industries Facility to ensure quick and effective product manufacturing. . The work environment is totally dust-free and the company uses Japanese concepts extensively. The Group ensures consistency in quality as it is completely self-sufficient. Its Moulds & Dies, Jigs & Fixtures for Assembly Line Set-up are all designed & manufactured in-house. The company uses the latest computer aided machining using Wire Cut, Milling & E.D.M. Product Validation equipment at the Group facilities include Multilayer product test bench, Accelerated Corrosive Environment (ACE) test rig, Microprocessor based vibration testing machine, Heating ovens – Room temp to 300 degrees, Low temp soak test – deep freezers with room temp to -55 degrees, Operation feeling checking machines and the like. Some of these products are not available with even the best automotive companies in the world. Advanced testing equipment like Life Test Rig, Muffle Furnace, Photo Integrator, Cupping Tester, Salt Spray, Dust Chamber, Water Spray, Shock Resistance Tester, Bulb Life Tester, Standard Weather Meter, Vibration Tester, Thickness Tester, Programmable Temperature and Humidity Tester, Constant Warm Water Tank Tester and Hardness Testers are all available in the laboratory at Minda. The state of the art equipment ensures that stringent norms are maintained and each product adheres to the Minda seal of quality. 25
  • 26. QUALITY INITIATIVES Name of the Unit Certifications Mindarika Pvt. Ltd. TS: 16949:2002, ISO 9001 : 1994 , QS 9000 : 1998, ISO 14001 : 2004 Minda Industries Ltd. Switch Division ISO 9001: 2000, ISO 14001 : 1996 OHSAS 18001, NABL - LAB Certification Minda Industries Ltd. Lighting Division ISO 9001 : 1994, TS 16949 : 2002 MINDA FIAMM Acoustic Ltd ISO 14001:1996, TS 16949 : 2002 QS 9000 : 1998 FIAMM Minda Automotive Ltd. ISO 14001 : 2004, TS 16949 : 2002 Other Quality Initiatives include: • Business Excellence o The group has collaborated with CII on a well defined 3 years business excellence program titled "BEST" (Business Excellence Through Simple Techniques). o The programme covers leadership, strategy, people, process, customer satisfaction and business results. • Quality Circles o 50 Quality Circles are actively involved in the improvement projects across the group. o Inter Unit Quality circle competitions are held quarterly to honour their efforts. • Kaizen o Involvement in Kaizen activities from all the levels. o Unit and Group level awards are given to best Kaizen activities. 26
  • 27. • 5S o Emphasis is laid on "5S" principles o Internal audit is held every quarter. • TEI -100 o NK Minda Group target is to achieve 100 PPM level through Total Employees Involvement (TEI) during the year 2006-07. RESEARCH The reason that Minda has consistently been on top in its product categories is because it is constantly offering innovative products that it develops in association with its clients. The idea of customer delight comes into play here, where the design engineers anticipate future requirements, design and develop prototypes and offer potential winners. NK Minda group spends 3% of its annual turnover on R&D efforts with the aim being to increase it to 5% of the ATO in the coming years. The group has spent Rs.500 million (USD 11 million) on its R&D initiatives. These initiatives are already throwing up interesting possibilities in Advanced Styling Design (ASD) products and High Intensity Discharge Head Lamp (HID H/L) that save energy, have high intensity and are environment friendly. The group is also working on developing Adaptive Front Light Systems (AFS) and Parabolic Elliptical Systems. Advanced R&D activities are going on for initiatives like LED based Automotive Lighting, Illuminated Switch, Electronic Cell, Automatic HVAC Control Panel, Body Control Module, Contact Less Switches and Rain Sensor. (Is this still relevant) Advanced R&D activities are going on for initiatives like LED based Automotive Lighting, Illuminated Switch, Electronic Cell, Automatic HVAC Control Panel, Body Control Module, Contact Less Switches and Grain Sensor. Given below is the table of the research initiatives: 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Patents 1 2 1 Designs 11 1 Trade Marks 1 3 1 4 Copyright 2 2 27
  • 28. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict. - William Ellery Channing, American, 1780-1842 A lot of research has been conducted in the areas of job satisfaction and conflict resolution. In the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology, one of the most researched areas is the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Landy (1989) described this relationship as the “Holy Grail” of Industrial psychology. Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at least 1939, with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In Judge et al. (2001), it was found by Brayfield and Crockett (1955) that there is only a minimal relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. However, since 1955, Judge et al. (2001) cited that there are other studies by Locke (1970), Schwab & Cummings (1970), and Vroom (1964) that have shown that there is at least some relationship between those variables. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) did an extensive analysis on the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Across their many studies, they found a mean correlation of .17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). There are also stronger relationships depending on specific circumstances such as mood and employee level within the company (Morrison, 1997). Organ (1988) also found that the job performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange theory; employees’ performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction. 28
  • 29. Judge et al. (2001) argued that there are seven different models that can be used to describe the job satisfaction and job performance relationship. Some of these models view the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance to be unidirectional, that either job satisfaction causes job performance or vice versa. Another model states that the relationship is a reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research of Wanous (1974). The underlying theory of this reciprocal model is that if the satisfaction is extrinsic, then satisfaction leads to performance, but if the satisfaction is intrinsic, then the performance leads to satisfaction. Other models suggest there is either an outside factor that causes a seemingly relationship between the factors or that there is no relationship at all, however, neither of these models have much research. The final model is “Alternative Conceptualizations of Job Satisfaction and/or Job Performance.” This model discusses how positive attitudes toward one’s job can predict a high degree of job performance. George and Brief (1996) and Isen and Baron (1991) both found that employees’ attitudes are reflected in their job performance. If this is the case, then we can argue that there is a relationship between employees’ job satisfaction and job performance, as satisfaction is an attitude about their job. Industrial psychologists do not justify any relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, although it has been found that a positive mood is related to higher levels of job performance and job satisfaction. Anytime people work together, conflict is a part of ‘doing business’. Conflict is a normal and natural part of any workplace. When it occurs, there is a tendency for morale to be lowered, an increase in absenteeism and decreased productivity. It has been estimated that managers spend at least 25 percent of their time resolving workplace conflicts – causing lowered office performance. Handling and resolving conflicts that arise in the workplace is one of the biggest challenges managers and employees face. Typically there are two responses to conflict: run away (avoidance) or ‘battle it out’. In either case, we often feel uncomfortable or dissatisfied with the results because no resolution has been achieved. By learning to constructively resolve conflict, we can turn a potentially destructive situation into an opportunity for creativity and enhanced performance. There 29
  • 30. are many causes or reasons for conflict in any work setting. Some of the primary causes are: Poor Communication: different communication styles can lead to misunderstandings between employees or between employee and manager. Lack of communication drives conflict ‘underground’. Different Values: any workplace is made up of individuals who see the world differently. Conflict occurs when there is a lack of acceptance and understanding of these differences. Differing Interests: conflict occurs when individual workers ‘fight’ for their personal goals, ignoring organizational goals and organizational well-being. Scarce Resources: too often, employees feel they have to compete for available resources in order to do their job. In a resource scarce environment, this causes conflicts – despite awareness of how scarce resources may be. Personality Clashes: all work environments are made up of differing personalities. Unless colleagues understand and accept each other’s approach to work and problem-solving, conflict will occur. Poor Performance: when one or more individuals within a work unit are not performing - not working up to potential – and this is not addressed, conflict is inevitable. There are a number of ways that can be utilized to address workplace conflict:  Avoidance: ‘hiding our head in the sand’, hoping the conflict will go away.  Collaboration: working together to find a mutually beneficial solution.  Compromise: finding the middle ground whereby a ‘little is given and little is gotten’.  Competing: ‘may the best person win’.  Accommodation: surrendering our own needs and wishes to please the other person. It is generally believed that either collaboration or compromise are the most productive forms of addressing conflict because there is not a winner or loser but rather a working together for the best possible solution. Arriving at a positive resolution of conflict is always the ultimate goal. In resolving conflict, it is important to make sure you do the following: Clearly articulate the causes of the conflict – openly acknowledging there will be 30
  • 31. differing perceptions of the problem(s). Make a clear statement of why you want the conflict resolved and reasons to work on conflict. Communication of how you want the conflict resolved. Address the issues face-to-face (notes, email correspondence, memos are not a productive way to resolve differences). Stick to the issues. In trying to resolve conflict, it is tempting to resort to name calling or bring up issues from the past. It is important to address specific behaviors and situations if change is to take place. Take time out if necessary. In the resolution of a conflict, our emotions may interfere with arriving at a productive resolution. If this transpires, take a time-out and resume resolving the conflict at another designated time. Avoiding conflict is often the easiest way to deal with it. It does not however make it go away but rather pushes it underground, only to have it resurface in a new form. By actively resolving conflict when it occurs, we can create a more positive work environment for everyone. The second theory is commonly referred to as the "Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach". This conflict resolution strategy respects individual differences while helping people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position. In resolving conflict using this approach, you follow these rules: Make sure that good relationships are the first priority: As far as possible, make sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure; Keep people and problems separate: Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships; Pay attention to the interests that are being presented: By listening carefully you'll most- likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position; Listen first; talk second: To solve a problem effectively you have to understand where the 31
  • 32. other person is coming from before defending your own position; Set out the “Facts”: Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will have an impact on the decision; and Explore options together: Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and that you can get to this idea jointly. By following these rules, you can often keep contentious discussions positive and constructive. This helps to prevent the antagonism and dislike which so-often causes conflict to spin out of control. Based on these approaches, a starting point for dealing with conflict is to identify the overriding conflict style employed by yourself, your team or your organization. Over time, people's conflict management styles tend to mesh, and a “right” way to solve conflict emerges. It's good to recognize when this style can be used effectively, however make sure that people understand that different styles may suit different situations. Look at the circumstances, and think about the style that may be appropriate. Then use the process below to resolve the conflict: Step one is to set the scene - If appropriate to the situation, agree the rules of the IBR Approach (or at least consider using the approach yourself.) Make sure that people understand that the conflict may be a mutual problem, which may be best resolved through discussion and negotiation rather than through raw aggression. If you are involved in the conflict, emphasize the fact that you are presenting your perception of the problem. Use active listening skills to ensure you hear and understand other’s positions and perceptions – Restate; Paraphrase; Summarize And make sure that when you talk, you're using an adult, assertive approach rather than a submissive or aggressive style. Here you are trying to get to the underlying interests, needs, and concerns. Ask for the other person’s viewpoint and confirm that you respect his or her opinion and need his or her cooperation to solve the problem. Try to understand his or her motivations and goals, and see how your actions may be affecting these. Also, try to understand the conflict in objective terms: Is it affecting work performance? 32
  • 33. Damaging the delivery to the client? Disrupting team work? Hampering decision- making? And so on. Be sure to focus on work issues and leave personalities out of the discussion. • Listen with empathy and see the conflict from the other person’s point of view • Identify issues clearly and concisely • Use “I” statements • Remain flexible • Clarify feelings The next step is of agreement, where often-different underlying needs, interests and goals can cause people to perceive problems very differently. You'll need to agree the problems that you are trying to solve before you'll find a mutually acceptable solution. Sometimes different people will see different but interlocking problems - if you can't reach a common perception of the problem, then at the very least, you need to understand what the other person sees as the problem. If everyone is going to feel satisfied with the resolution, it will help if everyone has had fair input in generating solutions. Brainstorm possible solutions, and be open to all ideas, including ones you never considered before. By this stage, the conflict may be resolved: Both sides may better understand the position of the other, and a mutually satisfactory solution may be clear to all. However you may also have uncovered real differences between your positions. This is where a technique like win-win negotiation can be useful to find a solution that, at least to some extent, satisfies everyone. There are three guiding principles here: Be Calm, Be Patient, Have Respect. Conflict in the workplace can be incredibly destructive to good teamwork. Managed in the wrong way, real and legitimate differences between people can quickly spiral out of control, resulting in situations where co-operation breaks down and the team's mission is threatened. This is particularly the case where the wrong approaches to conflict resolution are used. To calm these situations down, it helps to take a positive approach to conflict resolution, where discussion is courteous and non-confrontational, and the focus is on issues rather than on individuals. If this is done, then, as long as people listen carefully and explore 33
  • 34. facts, issues and possible solutions properly, conflict can often be resolved effectively. There are many ways to resolve conflicts - surrendering, running away, overpowering your opponent with violence, filing a lawsuit, etc. The movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), sometimes referred to simply as conflict resolution, grew out of the belief that there are better options than using violence or going to court. Today, the terms ADR and conflict resolution are used somewhat interchangeably and refer to a wide range of processes that encourage nonviolent dispute resolution outside of the traditional court system. The field of conflict resolution also includes efforts in schools and communities to reduce violence and bullying and help young people develop communication and problem-solving skills. Common forms of conflict resolution include: Negotiation is a discussion among two or more people with the goal of reaching an agreement. Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a neutral third-party facilitator helps people discuss difficult issues and negotiate an agreement. Basic steps in the process include gathering information, framing the issues, developing options, negotiating, and formalizing agreements. Parties in mediation create their own solutions and the mediator does not have any decision-making power over the outcome. Arbitration is a process in which a third-party neutral, after reviewing evidence and listening to arguments from both sides, issues a decision to settle the case. Arbitration is often used in commercial and labor/management disputes. Mediation-Arbitration is a hybrid that combines both of the above processes. Prior to the session, the disputing parties agree to try mediation first, but give the neutral third party the authority to make a decision if mediation is not successful. Early Neutral Evaluation involves using a court-appointed attorney to review a case before it goes to trial. The attorney reviews the merits of the case and encourages the parties to attempt resolution. If there is no resolution, the attorney informs the disputants about how to proceed with litigation and gives an opinion on the likely outcome if the case goes to trial. Community Conferencing is a structured conversation involving all members of a community (offenders, victims, family, friends, etc.) who have been affected by a dispute 34
  • 35. or a crime. Using a script, the facilitator invites people to express how they were affected and how they wish to address and repair the harm that resulted. Collaborative Law refers to a process for solving disputes in which the attorneys commit to reaching a settlement without using litigation. Negotiated Rulemaking is a collaborative process in which government agencies seek input from a variety of stakeholders before issuing a new rule. Peer Mediation refers to a process in which young people act as mediators to help resolve disputes among their peers. The student mediators are trained and supervised by a teacher or other adult. Research also indicates that on several occasions, people avoid conflict resolution. Practicing personal courage is necessary if you want to really resolve conflicts at work. It is much easier and much safer to ignore the necessary conflict and play ostrich. Unfortunately, unresolved conflict tends to escalate. It never really disappears because it simmers just below the surface. Think of water that is coming to a boil. It burbles up in the pot sporadically and then finally reaches the boiling temperature. At that point, a full blown rolling, constant boiling is seen on the surface of the water. Conflict behaves similarly. The water may seem calm, but every once in awhile, usually at the worst possible times, the conflict burbles up to the surface once again. Unresolved conflict does not go away; unresolved conflict can turn into a full boil at any time. Many people are afraid of conflict resolution. They feel threatened by conflict resolution because they may not get what they want if the other party gets what they want. Even in the best circumstances, conflict resolution is uncomfortable because people are usually unskilled at conflict resolution. Finally, people can get hurt in a conflict and, at work they are still expected to work together effectively every day. This century's workplace makes conflict resolution more important, but also, more difficult. Team or work cell environments create more conflict as people with different opinions must choose to work together, often in close quarters. Empowering work environments, in which the traditional reliance on a manager to solve conflicts and make decisions, bring coworkers into more frequent conflict, as they must work issues out for themselves. Conflict resolution also: • Causes people to listen to and consider different ideas. 35
  • 36. • Enables people to increase their alternatives and potential paths. • Results in increased participation and more ownership of and commitment to the decisions and goals of the group or person. Dealing with conflict between and among individuals can be a frustrating and uncomfortable experience for administrators. When conflict occurs, "strong feelings are aroused, objectivity flies out the window, egos are threatened, and personal relationships are placed in jeopardy" (Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 1960). To be successful, top management must be able to manage conflict situations effectively. This requires using different conflict management styles, depending upon the conflict situation faced (Earnest 1994). In the workplace, one is likely to find two forms of conflict. The first is conflict about decisions, ideas, directions and actions, called "substantive conflict" since it deals with disagreements about the substance of issues. The second form, "personalized conflict" is often called a personality conflict. In this form, the two parties simply "don't like each other much" (Bacal, 2001). Substantive conflict can occur on just about any issue, but its moving force is that the two parties simply disagree about an issue. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. Handled correctly parties in conflict can create, for themselves and those around them, the ability to resolve an issue with something creative, something better than either party's original position. Rather than letting the situation deteriorating, the parties approach the situation, not as one that should be won, but with an eye on solving a problem. After discussing the situation, (and understanding each other's needs), they resolve the conflict. The benefits would never have occurred if this conflict hadn't occurred, or if either party played the situation as if it was a game to be one by one person or the other. While substantive conflict, if handled correctly, can be very productive, personalized conflict is almost never a good thing. There are several reasons. First personalized conflict is fuelled primarily by emotion (usually anger, frustration) and perceptions about someone else's personality, character or motives. When conflict is personalized and extreme each party acts as if the other is suspect as a person. Second, because personalized conflict is about emotion and not issues, problem solving almost never works, because neither party is really interested in solving a fact, in extreme cases, the parties go out of their 36
  • 37. ways to create new ones, imagined or real. Third, personalized conflicts almost always get worse over time, if they cannot be converted to substantive conflict. That is because each person expects problems, looks for them, finds them, and gets angrier. The parties develop an intense dislike of each other. Conflict arises from differences. When individuals come together in work teams their differences in terms of power, values and attitudes, and social factors all contribute to the creation of conflict. It is often difficult to expose the sources of conflict. Conflict can arise from numerous sources within a team setting and generally falls into three categories: communication factors, structural factors and personal factors (Varney, 1989). Barriers to communication are among the most important factors and can be a major source of misunderstanding. Communication barriers include poor listening skills; insufficient sharing of information; differences in interpretation and perception; and nonverbal cues being ignored or missed. Structural disagreements include the size of the organization, turnover rate, levels of participation, reward systems, and levels of interdependence among employees. Personal factors include things such as an individual's self-esteem, their personal goals, values and needs. In order for conflict to be dealt with successfully, managers and team members must understand its unpredictability and its impact on individuals and the team as a whole. Conflict in work teams is not necessarily destructive, however. Conflict can lead to new ideas and approaches to organizational processes, and increased interest in dealing with problems. Conflict, in this sense, can be considered positive, as it facilitates the surfacing of important issues and provides opportunities for people to develop their communication and interpersonal skills. Conflict becomes negative when it is left to escalate to the point where people begin to feel defeated and a combative climate of distrust and suspicion develops (Bowditch & Buono, 1997). Nelson (1995) cautions that negative conflict can destroy a team quickly, and often arises from poor planning. He offers this list of high potential areas from which negative conflict issues commonly arise: Administrative Procedures: If the team lacks good groundwork for what it's doing, its members will not be able to coordinate their work. People Resources: If the team does 37
  • 38. not have enough resources to do the job, it is inevitable that some will carry too heavy a load. Resentment, often unexpressed, may build, so it is crucial that team leaders ensure adequate resources. Cost overruns: Often inevitable, cost overruns become a problem when proper measures are not taken. The whole team should know early on when cost becomes a problem so additional funding can be sought by the team. This way the problem can be resolved before it grows into a problem for management. Schedules: The schedule is highly consequential to the team's project and should be highly visible. All members should be willing to work together to help each other meet their deadlines. Responsibilities: Each team member must know what areas are assigned and who is accountable for them. Wish Lists: Stick to the project at hand and avoid being sidetracked into trying to fit other things into it. Wait and do the other things you would like to do after successful completion of the original project. Team members can and should attempt to avoid negative conflict from occurring. Being aware of the potential for negative conflict to occur, and taking the necessary steps to ensure good planning will help. When negative conflict does occur there are five accepted methods for handling it: Direct Approach, Bargaining, Enforcement, Retreat, and De-emphasis (Nelson, 1995). Each can be used effectively in different circumstances. Direct Approach: This may be the best approach of all. It concentrates on the leader confronting the issue head-on. Though conflict is uncomfortable to deal with, it is best to look at issues objectively and to face them as they are. If criticism is used, it must be constructive to the recipients. This approach counts on the techniques of problem-solving and normally leaves everyone with a sense of resolution, because issues are brought to the surface and dealt with. Bargaining: This is an excellent technique when both parties have ideas on a solution yet cannot find common ground. Often a third party, such as a team leader, is needed to help find the compromise. Compromise involves give and take on both sides, however, and 38
  • 39. usually ends up with both walking away equally dissatisfied. Enforcement of Team Rules: Avoid using this method if possible; it can bring about hard feelings toward the leader and the team. This technique is only used when it is obvious that a member does not want to be a team player and refuses to work with the rest. If enforcement has to be used on an individual, it may be best for that person to find another team. Retreat: Only use this method when the problem isn't real to begin with. By simply avoiding it or working around it, a leader can often delay long enough for the individual to cool off. When used in the right environment by an experienced leader this technique can help to prevent minor incidents that are the result of someone having a bad day from becoming real problems that should never have occurred. De-emphasis: This is a form of bargaining where the emphasis is on the areas of agreement. When parties realize that there are areas where they are in agreement, they can often begin to move in a new direction. Though we often view conflict through a negative lens, teams require some conflict to operate effectively. Cooperative conflict can contribute to effective problem solving and decision making by motivating people to examine a problem. Encouraging the expression of many ideas; energizing people to seek a superior solution; and fostering integration of several ideas to create high-quality solutions (Tjosvold, 1988). The key is to understand how to handle it constructively. If members understand how to do it, differences that arise can result in benefits for a team. While it is true that suppressed differences can reduce the effectiveness of a team, when they are brought to the surface, disagreements can be dealt with and problems can be resolved. The actual process of airing differences can help to increase the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the team through the increased interest and energy that often accompanies it. This in turn fosters creativity and intensity among team members. In addition, bringing differences to the surface can result in better ideas and more innovative solutions. When people share their views and strive toward reaching a consensus, better decisions are reached. Team members also improve their communication skills and 39
  • 40. become better at understanding and listening to the information they receive when differences are freely aired. Fisher, Belgard, and Rayner (1995) offer these tips on improving listening skills: Understanding is not agreeing. Seek clarification before responding, if needed. Apply listening skills when receiving a message. Evaluate yourself for how well you listened at the end of any conversation. The tension of well-managed conflict allows teams to confront disagreement through healthy discussion and improve the decisions made (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994). This leads to greater team efficiency and effectiveness. Effectively managing conflict allows teams to stay focused on their goals. Swift and constructive conflict management leads to a broader understanding of the problem, healthy expression of different ideas or alternatives, and creates excitement from the positive interaction and involvement which will help the team through periods of transition and on to greater levels of performance. As teams become more responsible for managing themselves, it is important for organizations to help them by identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required to handle conflict. Then developing plans to transfer these skills and capabilities over to their teams. Because conflict is inevitable in teams, the focus needs to be on how it is managed. Conflict that is poorly handled creates an environment of fear and avoidance of the subject. On the other hand, if properly managed, it can lead to learning, creativity, and growth. Rayeski and Bryant (1994) recommend using the Team Resolution Process to handle conflict when it occurs in teams. Conflict should first be handled on an informal basis between the individuals involved. This, they say, will allow time for resolution or self- correction by the individuals. If the conflict remains unsettled, a mediator can be brought in to help resolve the situation. If resolution is still not achieved the dispute should be openly discussed in a team meeting. A formal discipline process needs to occur, if resolution is not achieved after being addressed at the team level. The escalating process of Team Resolution is as follows: 40
  • 41. Collaboration (One-on-one): Handle the new problem person-to-person. Use as many facts as possible and relate the issue to customer, team, or organizational needs. Be open and honest and conduct the session in a private setting. Document the concerns or issues, the dates, and the resolution, if any, and have both parties sign it. Mediation (One-on-one with Mediator): If collaboration did not work or was inappropriate, handle the problem with a mediator. The mediator must be trained in conflict resolution, understand policy and ethics, be trusted by the team, and have the ability to remain neutral. Gather facts and talk over the issue with the people involved. Bring up as many facts as possible and relate the issue to customer, team, or organizational needs. Be open and honest and conduct the mediation session in private. Document it and have all parties sign. Team Counseling: The conflict is now a definite issue to the team. Collaboration and/or Mediation could not be done, were not appropriate, or did not work. Handle the conflict at a team meeting; put the problem on the next agenda and invite the necessary individuals. Again, bring up the facts, relate the issue to customer, team, or organizational needs. Be open and honest, discuss it in a private setting, document it, and have all parties sign it. Anyone on the team can put an issue or problem on the team agenda, however, this step should be used only after Collaboration, and Mediation has been ruled out. Because every team is different, disputes that arise will be too. However, Stulberg (1987) recognizes patterns common to all controversies. He calls them the Five-P's of Conflict Management: Perceptions: People associate conflict with negative responses such as anger, fear, tension, and anxiety. Rarely do we perceive any benefits from being involved in a dispute. Our negative perceptions impact our approach in resolving conflict as we strive to eliminate the source of these negative feelings. Problems: Anyone can be involved in a conflict, and the amount of time, money, and equipment needed for resolution will vary according to its complexity. Processes: There are different ways to go about resolving disputes: Suppress the conflict, give in, fight, litigate, mediate, etc. Principles: We determine the priorities of all resolution processes on the basis of an analysis of our fundamental values regarding efficiency, participation, fairness, 41
  • 42. compliance, etc. Practices: Power, self-interest, and unique situations are all factors relating to why people resolve disputes the way they do. Stulberg proposed these patterns as an aid for formal mediators, but anyone dealing with conflict can benefit from understanding the elements common to disagreements. Although there are common patterns, there is no one best way to deal with conflict. Disputes arise for different reasons and every team is unique. Varney (1989) proposes that negotiation is the most effective response to conflict when both parties stand to gain something, each has some power, and there is interdependency. Negotiation offers flexibility and viability other responses, such as Avoidance, Confrontation, and Diffusion lack. The process of negotiation involves listening to both sides, seeking out common areas of interest and agreement, and building on them so that individuals can understand each other's points of view. Varney believes there are four essential skills team leaders need to learn and apply to effectively resolve disagreements using the negotiation process: Diagnosis: Recognizing areas of understanding and areas of differences. Initiation: Bringing the disagreements to the surface. Listening: Hearing not only what the other person is saying, but the Emotional aspects as well. Problem Solving: A process with numerous steps including data gathering, Considering its impact, examining alternatives, identifying solutions, and developing a plan of action. In order to resolve their differences, Varney (1989) recommends bringing the parties together and, with the assistance of a third party, asking the following questions: What is the problem, as you perceive it? What does the other person do that contributes to the problem? What do you want or need from the other person? What do you do that contributes to the problem? What first step can you take to resolve the problem? Each party should be questioned while the other listens, asking questions only for clarification. Then the parties discuss a mutual definition and understanding of the problem. They should be allowed to express their feelings and get hostility out of their systems at this stage, but both parties must be willing to admit partial responsibility for 42
  • 43. the problem. This requires good listening, low defensiveness, and an ability to stay in a problem-solving mode. Agreement should be reached on what steps will be taken to resolve the problem, and should be put in writing in order to prevent later misunderstandings. The key to Varney's negotiation process is exposing the different positions as early as possible. If conflict is left to simmer and then erupt into open warfare, it becomes much more difficult to resolve. Revealing the sources of conflict early on enables people to understand the facts of the dispute, before emotions get the upper hand, which may allow them to more easily see their areas of agreement. When agreement areas are identified, people can then work toward arriving at a consensus and develop a process for resolving problems in the future. Fisher et al. (1995) offers a similar five-step approach to resolving conflict:- Gain common ground by putting the conflict in perspective with the goals and purpose of the team. Seek to understand all angles of the disagreement, keeping in mind that understanding is different from agreement. Attack the issue, not each other. Channel anger and hostility into problem solving and action planning. Develop an action plan describing what each person will do to solve the problem. This method allows both parties to acknowledge the nature of the conflict, then jointly work toward resolving it. As with Varney's (1989) approach, the key to this process is responding quickly and effectively when conflict presents itself. Teams are cautioned to avoid covering up painful issues. Sooner or later, unresolved issues tend to resurface, often in uglier forms than before. Along the same lines, teams should not automatically defer an issue to management, as this disempowers the team. Instead, they should learn how to handle disputes themselves, requesting help from management only when their own attempts at resolution have failed. Fisher et al. (1995) stress that team members should be encouraged to voice their concerns in team meetings rather than outside the team setting, in an attempt to avoid what they call it the AParking Lot Commentary (p. 43
  • 44. 212). This happens when team members are afraid to voice feelings to the team so they begin to talk about team issues in conversations with individuals. When this occurs it undermines the trust and integrity of the team. Though the recognition that conflict can be productive is not new (for example, Coser, 1956; Deutsh, 1969), some of the conflict issues that organizations are dealing with are. For instance, one study (Kezsbom, 1992) looked at sources of conflict among project teams and found that the number one issue developed from goals and priority issues. Previous literature (Posner, 1986; Thamhain & Wilemon, 1975) presented the number one source of conflict as being disagreements over schedules, which ranked at number seven in Kezsbom's study. It makes sense that goals and priority issues have risen on the list as organizations have evolved into multi-project, streamlined environments. In these new complex, hybrid organizations, employees often find themselves serving on a variety of project teams, being led by a variety of project mangers while reporting directly to functional managers. This sets the stage for Kezsbom's third conflict category: communication and information flow. When reporting relationships are complex it becomes more difficult to share information. Personality and interpersonal issues, ranked in the number two category by those in high technology environments, presented another dramatic change from previous studies. This change may be related to the increased use of cross-functional, self-directed teams in which individuals with technical backgrounds must rely on the work of others to get their own work done. This specifically illustrates how important it is to provide training in communication and interpersonal skills to cross-functional team members, while emphasizing an appreciation of the value of differences. Overall, this study provides valuable insights for organizations, project leaders, and project team members. Because goal and priority issues frequently change, communication must be improved. Kezsbom (1992) makes these recommendations: More frequent and effective upward, downward, and team communications. More frequent meetings and status review sessions to increase communication between 44
  • 45. functions and minimize inconsistent perceptions of project goals and priorities. Increase human relations training and facilitate more active team-building efforts. Organizations must be aware that conflict grows from differences, but so does innovation. If project teams are properly trained in human relations and team-building skills, production and quality measures will increase. No matter what kind of team it is, no method of managing conflict will work without mutual respect and a willingness to disagree and resolve disagreements. Donald Weiss, president of Self-Management Communication, Inc., believes each person on the team must be willing to take the following four steps when a team meeting erupts into a storm (Weiss, 1997): listen, acknowledge, respond, and resolve remaining differences. Listen: To hear what someone else is saying is not the same as listening. To listen effectively means clearing your mind of distractions and concentrating not only on the words but also on nonverbal gestures, which often convey ninety percent of what the person is trying to say. When resolving disagreements, you often have to deal with feelings first. Acknowledge: You can acknowledge people's positions without agreeing with them. Show this with statements like, "I understand that you're angry," "If I understand you, you think we should", or "Let's explore your opinion further." You may still disagree with them, but at least they know you've heard them. Respond: You've listened and acknowledged what the other person is saying. Now it is your turn to be heard. If you're offering criticism of your teammate's ideas, make sure it's constructive, and if you're disagreeing with them, be ready to offer an alternative. Be willing, also, to be questioned or challenged, while avoiding defensiveness when you answer. Resolve remaining differences: Define the real problem by looking for what's causing the disagreement. Then analyze it into its manageable parts. Now you can generate alternative solutions to the problem and select the alternative on which everyone can agree. For individuals to work effectively in teams they must be able to clearly communicate their ideas, to listen, and be willing to disagree. Although it is difficult, learning to 45
  • 46. appreciate each other's differences reflects a team's ability to manage conflict. When conflict occurs we must not turn our backs and hope it will go away. Instead, we must learn to tolerate it, even welcome it, for well-managed conflict can be the source of change and innovation. As more and more organizations attempt to make the difficult transition to teams, they must develop and provide programs for their employees which offer training in conflict management skills and techniques. Research has been done on top management behaviour during conflicts and the conflict resolution modes adopted by them. But it is very surprising that the top management satisfaction levels have very little literature available. Primarily because, top management itself acts as a variable to determine job satisfaction among employees – researchers have not taken care to conduct research on the satisfaction of the senior-most personnel of the organization. It is against this background, that the proposed study has been taken up. 46
  • 47. OBJECTIVES • To study the level of job satisfaction amongst the top management at Minda. • To assess the behavior of top managers in conflict situations. HYPOTHESES • All in the top management are very highly satisfied in their current positions. • The top management is inclined to be assertive while handling conflicts. 47
  • 48. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Territorial scope: Local Fieldwork: November 2007 Sample size: 23 Population: Top Management Response rate: 100% Methodology: Questionnaire – Singh & Sharma Job Satisfaction Scale & Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Location of interviews: Minda Industries, at Manesar plant The participants for this study were all top management employees of the Minda Group. The study was performed on a total of 23 members. The materials required for this research included two different assessments: Job Satisfaction Scale (Singh and Sharma, 1999) and Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (1974, 2002) for conflict resolution. 48
  • 49. In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises. Thomas and Kilmann's styles are: Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations. 49
  • 50. Competing is assertive and uncooperative – a power-oriented mode. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position – the ability to argue, rank, economic sanctions, and so on. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win. Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off. Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative – the opposite of avoiding. When collaborating, the individual attempts to work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves digging into the issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative that meets both sets of concerns. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’ s insights, resolving some condition that would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem. Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something and the compromiser himself or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming. Compromising is intermediate to both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, the objective is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising fails on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the 50
  • 51. difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position. Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes. Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative – the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding another’s point of view. Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. Once these different styles are understood, they can be used to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation one is in. One can also think about one’s own instinctive approach, and learn how one needs to change this if necessary. Ideally one can adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships. 51
  • 52. Source: Strengths of the Thomas Kilmann lie in the fact that it is quick to administer and interpret. It takes about 15 minutes to answer the questions, and an hour or so for interpretation by a trainer. There are some interpretation materials helping users identify appropriate use of the styles and to help them become more comfortable with styles they are less familiar with. The Thomas Kilmann is also widely known and is available in English, French, and Spanish versions. The Thomas Kilmann is a forced choice questionnaire, which many users find frustrating. It assumes that all users have similar cultural background, an assumption that is inappropriate in many settings. It offers no materials on which to reflect in training settings on the impact of culture on response to conflict. Its interpretation materials are minimal. And finally, the Thomas Kilmann is very expensive. The Job Satisfaction Scale by Singh and Sharma is a well validated scale, very popularly used to measure job satisfaction amongst employees. It takes into account various variables like the job itself, working conditions, local leadership, competence, work organization and professional development. The dependent variable was measured on a five-point Likert-like scale ranging from “very highly satisfied” to “poorly satisfied”. 52
  • 53. RESULTS & INTERPRETATION JOB SATISFACTION SCALE Job Satisfaction Scale – Score S. Name of Very Highly Highly Moderately Poorly Not Total No. Employee satisfying (4) satisfying (3) satisfying (2) satisfying satisfying (0) Score (1) 1 A 60 45 0 0 0 105 2 B 72 33 0 0 0 105 3 C 24 48 14 0 0 86 4 D 84 30 0 0 0 114 5 E 0 36 38 0 0 74 6 F 12 15 24 4 0 55 7 G 12 48 10 5 0 75 8 H 8 42 18 3 0 71 9 I 0 51 24 6 0 81 10 J 0 63 22 0 0 85 11 K 24 54 2 1 0 81 12 L 76 36 0 0 0 112 13 M 0 45 28 0 0 73 14 N 4 6 30 18 0 58 15 O 0 57 24 0 0 81 16 P 0 45 30 0 0 75 17 Q 0 54 24 0 0 78 18 R 4 39 32 0 0 75 19 S 8 63 14 0 0 85 20 T 24 54 10 1 0 89 21 U 32 54 8 0 0 94 22 V 0 48 28 0 0 76 23 W 24 57 10 0 0 91 Measuring job satisfaction on a scale 0 – 4, and with the number of total items being, 30, the following ranges have been constructed: Response type Range No. of responses % of total Very Highly Satisfying 96-120 4 17.39% Highly Satisfying 72-95 16 69.57% Moderately Satisfying 48-71 3 13.04% Poorly Satisfying 24-47 0 0% Not Satisfying 0-23 0 0% 53
  • 54. 69.57% of the members of the top management team are in the range “highly satisfying”, while 17.39% are in the group “very highly satisfying” and about 13.04% of the members are in the range “moderately satisfying”. There are no participants who are poorly satisfied or not satisfied. It is quite unexpected that the majority of the senior-most executives of the organization are only “highly satisfied”, which negates our assumption that all in the top management are very highly satisfied in their current positions. In fact, if only 17.39% of the top managers are extremely satisfied, the owners of the company will need to look into the situation quickly. These are the executives, who are responsible for the top-line and bottom line of the organization; they set the goals and targets; lead the rest of their teams and have to set an example. If they are not motivated enough, how will they keep the motivation levels of their teams high? Moreover, this kind of information sends out wrong signals in the company. The executives at junior levels feel uncomfortable and insecure. The head of the organization needs to find out the probable reasons of this unexpected result so that corrective measures are taken in time to avoid high turnover among the top management team members. CONFLICT RESOLUTION MODE 54
  • 55. Competing S. No. Employee Competing Graphing (forcing) Into JSS Scale Interpretation 1 H 84% High 25% 71 Moderately Satisfying 2 B 84% High 25% 105 Very Highly Satisfying 3 C 81% High 25% 86 Highly Satisfying 4 K 81% High 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 5 T 81% High 25% 89 Highly Satisfying 6 V 81% High 25% 76 Highly Satisfying 7 J 71% Middle 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 8 M 71% Middle 50% 73 Highly Satisfying 9 S 71% Middle 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 10 W 71% Middle 50% 91 Highly Satisfying 11 E 58% Middle 50% 74 Highly Satisfying 12 U 58% Middle 50% 94 Highly Satisfying 13 L 58% Middle 50% 112 Very Highly Satisfying 14 I 42% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 15 O 42% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 16 Q 42% Middle 50% 78 Highly Satisfying 17 D 42% Middle 50% 114 Very Highly Satisfying 18 P 32% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 19 R 32% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 20 F 32% Middle 50% 55 Moderately Satisfying 21 N 32% Middle 50% 58 Moderately Satisfying 22 A 32% Middle 50% 105 Very Highly Satisfying 23 G 12% Low 25% 75 Highly Satisfying The Competing Mode is used • When quick, decisive action in vital – for example, in an emergency • On important issues where unpopular courses of action need implementing – for example, cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline • On issues vita to company welfare when you know you’re right • To protect yourself against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior 55
  • 56. Here there are 26% participants who are in the high range. They need to ask themselves: • Are they surrounded by “yes” people? If so, perhaps it’s because they have learned that it’s unwise to disagree with you or have given up trying to influence you. This closes you off from information. • Are employees afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to you? In competitive climates, one must fight for influence and respect, acting more certain and confident than one feels. This means that people are less able to ask for information and opinion – they are les likely to learn. Here only 1 employee, that is, 0.04% of the participants are in the low range. They need to ask themselves: • Do they often feel powerless in situations? They may be unaware of the power they do have, unskilled in its use, or uncomfortable with the idea of using it. This may hinder their effectiveness by restricting their influence. • Do they sometimes have trouble taking a firm stand, even when they see the need? Sometimes concerns for others’ feelings or anxieties about the use of power cause to vacillate, which may mean postponing the decision and adding to the suffering and /or resentment of others. 56
  • 57. Collaborating S. No. Employee Collaborating Graphing (problem Into solving) JSS Scale Interpretation 1 Q 84% High 25% 78 Highly Satisfying 2 Middle R 75% 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 3 N Middle 75% 50% 58 Moderately Satisfying 4 Middle I 56% 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 5 J Middle 56% 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 6 G Middle 43% 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 7 Middle U 43% 50% 94 Highly Satisfying 8 E Middle 27% 50% 74 Highly Satisfying 9 V Middle 27% 50% 76 Highly Satisfying 10 H Middle 27% 50% 71 Moderately Satisfying 11 A 27% Middle Very Highly 50% 105 Satisfying 12 O 18% Low 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 13 P 18% Low 25% 75 Highly Satisfying 14 W 18% Low 25% 91 Highly Satisfying 15 Very Highly L 18% Low 25% 112 Satisfying 16 C 8% Low 25% 86 Highly Satisfying 17 S 8% Low 25% 85 Highly Satisfying 18 F 8% Low 25% 55 Moderately Satisfying 19 D Very Highly 8% Low 25% 114 Satisfying 20 K 7% Low 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 21 T 7% Low 25% 89 Highly Satisfying 22 B 7% Very Highly Low 25% 105 Satisfying 23 M 5% Low 25% 73 Highly Satisfying The Collaborating Mode is used • To find an integrative solution when the concerns of both parties are too important to be compromised • When your objective is to learn – for example, testing your own assumptions, understanding the views of others • To merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem • To gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision • To work through hard feelings that have been interfering with an interpersonal relationship 57
  • 58. Here there is only 1 employee in the high range, that is 0.04% of the participants, and he needs to ask himself: • Does he sometimes spend time discussing issues in depth that do not seem to deserve it? Collaboration takes time and energy – perhaps the scarcest organizational resources. Trivial problems don’t require optimal solutions, and not all personal differences need to be hashed out. The overuse of collaboration and consensual decision making sometimes represents a desire to minimize risk – by diffusing responsibility for a decision or by postponing action. • Does his collaborative behavior fail to elicit collaborative responses from others? The exploratory and tentative nature of some collaborative behavior may make it easy for others to disregard collaborative overtures; or the trust and openness may be taken advantage of. You may be missing some cues that would indicate the presence of defensiveness, strong feelings, impatience, competitiveness, or conflicting interests. Here there are 52% participants in the low range. They need to ask themselves: • Is it difficult for them to see differences as opportunities for joint gain – that is, as opportunities to learn or solve problems? Although conflict situations often involve threatening or unproductive aspects, approaching all such situations with pessimism can prevent them from seeing collaborative possibilities and thus deprive them of the mutual gains and satisfactions that accompany successful collaboration. • Are their employees uncommitted to their decisions or policies? Perhaps their concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies. COMPROMISING 58
  • 59. S. No. Employee Compromising Graphing Into (sharing) JSS Scale Interpretation 1 G 92% High 25% 75 Highly Satisfying 2 M 92% High 25% 73 Highly Satisfying 3 B 92% Very Highly High 25% 105 Satisfying 4 C 81% High 25% 86 Highly Satisfying 5 V 81% High 25% 76 Highly Satisfying 6 K 71% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 7 E 52% Middle 50% 74 Highly Satisfying 8 O 52% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 9 S 52% Middle 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 10 F 52% Middle 50% 55 Moderately Satisfying 11 D Very Highly 52% Middle 50% 114 Satisfying 12 I 35% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 13 U 35% Middle 50% 94 Highly Satisfying 14 A 35% Very Highly Middle 50% 105 Satisfying 15 P 29% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 16 R 29% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 17 H 29% Middle 50% 71 Moderately Satisfying 18 N 29% Middle 50% 58 Moderately Satisfying 19 Very Highly L 29% Middle 50% 112 Satisfying 20 Q 7% Low 25% 78 Highly Satisfying 21 W 7% Low 25% 91 Highly Satisfying 22 T 5% Low 25% 89 Highly Satisfying 23 J 2% Low 25% 85 Highly Satisfying The Compromising Mode is used: • When goals are moderately important but not worth the effort or the potential disruption involved in using more assertive modes • When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals – as in labor-management bargaining • To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues • To arrive at an expedient solution under time pressure • As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails Here there are 21.7% in the high range who need to ask themselves: 59
  • 60. • Do they concentrate so heavily on the practicalities and tactics of compromise that they sometimes lose sight of larger issues—for example, principles, values, long-term objectives, or company welfare? • Does an emphasis on bargaining and trading create a cynical climate of gamesmanship? Such a climate may undermine interpersonal trust and deflect attention away from the merits of the issues discussed. Here there are 17.3% participants are in the low range who need to ask themselves: • Do they find themselves too sensitive or embarrassed to be effective in bargaining situations? • Do they find it difficult to make concessions? Without this safety valve, they may have trouble gracefully getting out of mutually destructive arguments, power struggles, and so on. AVOIDING 60
  • 61. S. No. Employee Avoiding Graphing Into (withdrawing) JSS Scale Interpretation 1 F 95% High 25% 55 Moderately Satisfying 2 K 81% High 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 3 P 81% High 25% 75 Highly Satisfying 4 S 81% High 25% 85 Highly Satisfying 5 D 81% High 25% 114 Very Highly Satisfying 6 C 68% Middle 50% 86 Highly Satisfying 7 J 68% Middle 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 8 W 68% Middle 50% 91 Highly Satisfying 9 L 68% Middle 50% 112 Very Highly Satisfying 10 E 52% Middle 50% 74 Highly Satisfying 11 G 52% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 12 I 52% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 13 M 52% Middle 50% 73 Highly Satisfying 14 H 52% Middle 50% 71 Moderately Satisfying 15 A 52% Middle 50% 105 Very Highly Satisfying 16 B 52% Middle 50% 105 Very Highly Satisfying 17 O 32% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 18 T 23% Low 25% 89 Highly Satisfying 19 V 23% Low 25% 76 Highly Satisfying 20 Q 12% Low 25% 78 Highly Satisfying 21 U 12% Low 25% 94 Highly Satisfying 22 N 12% Low 25% 58 Moderately Satisfying 23 R 5% Low 25% 75 Highly Satisfying The Avoiding Mode is used: • When an issue is trivial or of only passing importance, or when other, more important issues are pressing • When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns – for example, when you have low power or you are frustrated by something that would be very difficult to change (national policies, someone’s personality structure, and so on) • When the potential costs of confronting a conflict outweigh the benefits of its resolution • To let people cool down – to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain perspective and composure • When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision • When others can resolve the conflict more effectively 61
  • 62. • When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another, more basic issue Here there are 21.7% participants in high range, who need to ask themselves: • Does their coordination suffer because people sometimes have trouble getting their input on issues? • Does it sometimes appear that people are “walking on eggshells?” Sometimes a dysfunctional amount of energy can be devoted to caution and avoiding issues, indicating that issues need to be faced and resolved • Are decisions on important issues sometimes made by default? There are 26% participants in the low range who need to answer the following questions: • Do they sometimes find themselves hurting others’ feelings or stirring up hostilities? They may need to exercise more discretion about which issues they raise and greater tact in framing issues in non-threatening ways. • Do they often feel harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues? They may need to develop more time to setting priorities – that is, deciding which issues are relatively unimportant, and perhaps delegating them to others. ACCOMMODATING S. No. Employee Accommodating Graphing Into (smoothing) JSS Scale Interpretation 62
  • 63. 1 O 95% High 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 2 R 95% High 25% 75 Highly Satisfying 3 Q 92% High 25% 78 Highly Satisfying 4 U 92% High 25% 94 Highly Satisfying 5 N 92% High 25% 58 Moderately Satisfying 6 J 91% High 25% 85 Highly Satisfying 7 P 91% High 25% 75 Highly Satisfying 8 W 91% High 25% 91 Highly Satisfying 9 A 91% High 25% 105 Very Highly Satisfying 10 L 84% High 25% 112 Very Highly Satisfying 11 F 75% Middle 50% 55 Moderately Satisfying 12 E 56% Middle 50% 74 Highly Satisfying 13 G 56% Middle 50% 75 Highly Satisfying 14 I 56% Middle 50% 81 Highly Satisfying 15 C 38% Middle 50% 86 Highly Satisfying 16 M 38% Middle 50% 73 Highly Satisfying 17 S 38% Middle 50% 85 Highly Satisfying 18 V 38% Middle 50% 76 Highly Satisfying 19 D 38% Middle 50% 114 Very Highly Satisfying 20 K 24% Low 25% 81 Highly Satisfying 21 T 24% Low 25% 89 Highly Satisfying 22 H 24% Low 25% 71 Moderately Satisfying 23 B 5% Low 25% 105 Very Highly Satisfying The Accommodating Mode is used: • When you realize that you are wrong – to allow a better position to be considered, to learn from others, and to show that you are reasonable • When the issue is much more important to the other person than it is to you – to satisfy the needs of others, and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship • To build up social credits for later issues that are important to you • When continued competition would only damage your cause – when you are outmatched and losing • When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important • To aid in the managerial development of your employees by allowing then to experiment and learn from their own mistakes Here 43.4% participants are in the high range, and they need to ask themselves: • Do they feel that their ideas and concerns sometimes do not get the attention they deserve? Deferring too much to the concerns of others can deprive them of influence, respect, 63
  • 64. and recognition. It can also deprive the organization of their potential contributions. • Is discipline lax? Although discipline for its own sake may be of little value, there are often rules, procedures, and assignments whose implementation is crucial for them or the organization. There are 17.3% participants in the low range who need to ask themselves: • Do they sometimes have trouble building goodwill with others? Accommodation on minor issues that are important to others is a gesture of goodwill. • Do others sometimes seem to regard them as unreasonable? • Do they occasionally have trouble admitting when they are wrong? • Do they recognize legitimate exceptions to the rules? • Do they know when to give up? 64
  • 66. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument is designed to assess an individual’s behaviour in conflict situations. It is described in two basic dimensions: 1. Assertiveness • The extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns 2. Cooperativeness • The extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns The Top Managers of the Minda Group are more cooperative than assertive based on their scores. 66
  • 67. CONCLUSION Conflicts are inevitable, but the more we know about human nature, the better we will be at resolving conflicts, and the better the outcome might be for both parties. We know that different people have different priorities and different styles in dealing with situations that may occur, but in general, human beings have certain characteristics that are very similar - even across gender, racial, and socio-economic lines. Conflict must not be avoided. It needs to be tackled with an open mind and attitude. It should be cooperative conflict resolution, where both the involved parties should come together voluntarily, and work together in a cooperated manner. With the low scores of the top management, the head of the Minda Group must create a situation of offering an ideal job in which his senior team is motivated, inspired, respected and well paid. Lack of job satisfaction can be a significant source of stress. There could be several reasons including, bureaucracy, personal conflicts between senior team members, compensation issues etc. There must be significant probing of the issues so as to resolve them quickly. 67
  • 68. References: Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192. Bolton, Robert, People Skills: How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others & Resolve Conflicts, Simon and Schuster, 1979. Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F. (1997). A primer on organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York, NY: JohnWiley & Sons. Brayfield, A. H. & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 396-424. Bridges, William, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1991. Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374-381. Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Deutsh, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25 (1), 7 - 41. Crum, Thomas, The Magic of Conflict, Simon and Schuster, 1998. Fisher, K., Rayner, S., Belgard, W., (1995). Tips for teams: A ready reference for solving common team problems. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Fisher, Roger and Brown, Scott, Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate Penguin Books, 1988. Fisher, Roger and Ertl Danny, Getting Ready To Negotiate: The Getting to Yes Workbook, 1995 Fisher, Roger and Ury, William, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Penguin Books, 1991. Garee W. Earnest (1994), Managing Administrative Conflicts, Journal of Extension, June 1994, Volume 32 Number 1 George, J. M. & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 75-109. Hacket, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A reevaluation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 35, 340-381. Heitler, Susan M, From Conflict to Resolution, W.W. Norton and Co.,New York, 1990 68
  • 69. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Constitution of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200. Isen, A. M. & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 1-53. Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction- job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948. Kezsbom, D. S. (1992). Re-opening Pandora's box: Sources of project conflict in the >90s. Industrial Engineering, 24 (5), 54 - 59. Laborde, Genie, Influencing With Integrity: Management Skills for Communication and Negotiation, Syntony Publishing, Palo Alto, CA, 1983, 1987. Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Morrison, K. A. (1997). How franchise job satisfaction and personality affects performance, organizational commitment franchiser relations, and intention to remain. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 39-68. Nelson, M. (1995). Interpersonal team leadership skills. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 16 (4), 53 - 63. Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547-557. 69
  • 70. Rayeski, E., & Bryant, J. D. (1994). Team resolution process: A guideline for teams to manage conflict, performance, and discipline. In M. Beyerlein & M. Bullock (Eds.), The International Conference on Work Teams Proceedings: Anniversary Collection. The Best of 1990 - 1994 (pp. 215 - 221). Denton: University of North Texas, Center for the Study of Work Teams. Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rosen, H. Robert and Berger, Lisa, The Healthy Company, Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., 1992. Schmidt, W. H., & Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Management of differences. Harvard Business Review, 38(6), 107-115. Singer, Linda, Settling Disputes, Westview Press, Boulder, CO 1990. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480. Stulberg, J. B. (1987). Taking charge / managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Tannen, Deborah, Talking From 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace, Avon Books, 1994 Tanner, Deborah, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, HarperCollins Books, 2001. Thamhain, H., & Wilemon, D. L. (1975). Conflict management in project life cycles. Sloan Management Review, 17 (3). Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved, Jossey Bass Publishing, San Francisco, CA 1989. Ury, William, Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People, Bantam Books, 1991. Varney, G. H. (1989). Building productive teams: An action guide and resource book. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, Inc. Volkema, Roger, The Negotiation Tool Kit, AMACOM, American Management Association, New York, 1999. Wanous, J. P. (1974). A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 139-144. 70
  • 71. Webne Behrman, Harry, The Practice of Facilitation: Managing Group Process and Solving Problems, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, 1998. Webne Behrman, Harry, Guardian of the Process: A Handbook for Group Facilitators, Collaborative Initiative, Madison, WI, December 1994. Weeks, Dudley, The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution, Tarcher Books, NY, 1992. Weiss, D. H. (1997). Four steps for managing team storms. Getting ResultsYFor the hands-on Manager, 42 (7), 7. 71
  • 72. Annexure A: JOB SATISFACTION SCALE Note: Please tick as (√ ) the response which you think as most appropriate Job satisfaction scale 1. In the society in general, as a result of the job I hold, my social Excellent Good So so Poor Very poor status is 2. With regard to economic advantages, like salary, allowances, Extremely Very Moderately Poorly Not Satisfying etc., I rate my job as Satisfying Satisfying Satisfying Satisfying 3. The training, orientation and experiences that I have got while on job has improved my competence and efficiency as a man Very Greatly Greatly Sufficiently Inadequately Not at all 4. Keeping individual factors like intelligence, capacity, Far superior to Superior to the Equal to the Less than the Much less than diligence, etc., in view, I genuinely feel that I am the job job job job the job 5. With regard to post retirement benefits, like pension, gratuity, Aye-one Good So so Bad Very bad etc., I rate my job as 6. In/At my job the inbuilt programmes for recreations, In plenty In good Sufficient Poor Very poor entertainments, like picnics, outings, variety programmes etc. measure are there 7. As a result of the job that I hold, my social circle has widened Very great Great Advantage A little No advantage to my advantage advantage advantage 8. Do you agree that your bosses and colleagues are cooperative, Strongly agree Agree Poorly agree Slightly Disagree helpful and inspiring people for better and sincere work disagree 9. My job provides facilities like medical care, housing, Very adequate Adequate So so Inadequate Nil subsidized rationing, traveling, etc. 10. My job is responsible for developing in me a desirable style of To a very great To a great To a moderate To some extent To no measure
  • 73. life, with regard to habits and attitudes extent extent extent 11. My job gives me time and opportunities to attend to my family Very easily Easily Without With difficulty Not at all difficulty 12. By virtue of the job that I hold, opportunities to get certain Very many Many Moderate Few Nil other positions ex-officio, etc. are 13. Places of posting in my job are irksome and inconvenient to Very Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never me and my family frequently 14. My job in its own way is trying to improve the quality of life, Yes-yes Yes Yes-no No No-no i.e., it endeavours to make a better man. Do you agree? 15. On the scale of democratic functioning, I rate my job as Extremely Very Slightly Sometimes Undemocratic democratic democratic democratic democratic 16. Keeping employment requirements like qualification, training, Much higher Higher As per Low Very low etc., as equal, I rate my job in comparison with others as 17. My job is so absorbing that even in the absence of overtime Always Frequently Now an then Under Never allowance, I am willing to work on Sundays, holidays etc. and compulsion also at late hours 18. In some emergency after me, my job has provisions to offer In plenty In good Sufficient Poor Very poor job to my children or family, ex gratia grants, etc. measure 19. The working conditions like comfortable seatings, adequate Very Satisfactory Only slightly Unsatisfactory Not at all temperature, humidity, hygienic and healthy environment of satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory office / work place are 20. My job is light enough to enable me to undertake side jobs in a Big measure Good measure Quite few Few Nil 21. Malpractices like corruption, favouritism etc., are there in my In abundance Sufficiently Moderately Slightly Not at all 73
  • 74. job also 22. Do you agree that your job or profession in any way adds to Strongly agree Agree Poorly agree Slightly Completely the economy and development of the nation? disagree disagree 23. If given a chance I shall put my children to the job that I am Very strongly Strongly Moderately Rarely Never in. Do you agree? 24. Work is worship was perhaps spoken about the job that I hold Very right Quite right Not right Wrong Stupid 25. Communication net work (both upward an downward) in my Very adequate Sufficiently Slightly Inadequate Very profession is adequate adequate inadequate 26. Opportunities in my job for horizontal and longitudinal Very many Many Sufficient Few Nil mobility, like promotion, increased responsibilities are 27. If given a chance, even if emoluments do not register All at once Quickly Slowly Reluctantly Never enhancement, I will like to shift to some other job 28. How far do you agree that the hierarchy in you job leaves no Strongly agree Agree So-so Slightly Strongly scope for freedom, decision making, initiative etc., rather it disagree disagree produces boredom 29. To my family, relatives and friends, my job appears to be Very pleasing Pleasing Okay Somewhat Displeasing displeasing 30. All said and done, how satisfied are you with your job Completely Very satisfied Moderately Slightly Not at all satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 74
  • 75. Annexure B: CONFLICT RESOLUTION INSTRUMENT 1. A. There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem. B. Rather than negotiate the things on which we disagree, I try to stress those things on which we both agree. 2. A. I try to find a compromise solution. B. I attempt to deal with all of his/her and my concerns. 3. A. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. 4. A. I try to find a compromise solution. B. I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person. 5. A. I consistently seek the other’s help in working out a solution. B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions. 6. A. I try to avoid creating unpleasantness for myself. B. I try to win my position. 7. A. I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over. B. I give up some points in exchange for others. 8. A. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open. 9. A. I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about. B. I make some effort to get my way. 10 A. I am firm in pursuing my goals. . 75
  • 76. B. I try to find a compromise solution. 11 A. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open. . B. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. 12 A. I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy. . B. I will let the other person have some of his / her positions if he / she lets me have some of mine. 13 A. I propose a middle ground. . B. I Press to get my points made. 14 A. I tell the other person my ideas and ask for his / hers. . B. I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position. 15 A. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. . B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid tensions. 16 A. I try not to hurt the other’s feelings. . B. I try to convince the other person of the merits of my position. 17 A. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. . B. I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions. 18 A. If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views. . 76
  • 77. B. I will let other people have some of their positions if they let me have some of mine. 19 A. I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open. . B. I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over. 20 A. I attempt to immediately work through our differences. . B. I try to find a fair combination of gains and losses for both of us. 21 A. In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes. . B. I always lean toward a direct discussion of the problem. 22 A. I try to find a position that is intermediate between his / hers and mine. . B. I assert my wishes. 23 A. I am very often concerned with satisfying all our wishes. . B. There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem. 24 A. If the other’s position seems very important to him / her, I would try to meet his / her wishes. . B. I try to get the other person to settle for a compromise. 25 A. I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position. . B. In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes. 26 A. I propose a middle ground. . 77
  • 78. B. I am nearly always concerned with satisfying all our wishes. 27 A. I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy. . B. If it makes other people happy, I might let them maintain their views. 28 A. I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. . B. I usually seek the other’s help in working out a solution. 29 A. I propose a middle ground. . B. I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about. 30 A. I try not to hurt the other’s feelings. . B. I always share the problem with the other person so that we can work it out. 78