A study of job satisfaction and conflict resolution modes in the minda group
A STUDY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND
CONFLICT RESOLUTION MODES IN THE
Submitted for the partial fulfillment of Master of Business Administration
• ABOUT THE COMPANY
• REVIEW OF LITERATURE
• OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES
• RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
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
• 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,
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.
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
Coworkers: The degree to which fellow workers are technically proficient and socially
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
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
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
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.
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)
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
all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.
. 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
Conflict itself has both positive and negative outcomes. Practitioners in the field of
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
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
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.
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
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
who of the automotive sector in India and around the world.
LOCATION OF PLANTS IN INDIA
PRODUCTS OF MINDA GROUP
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)
To continually enhance stakeholders’ value through global competitiveness while
contributing to society.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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 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.
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 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
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
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.
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
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
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
Production Engineering enhancements ensure that the manufacturing process is smoother,
quicker and has seamless movement right from design & development to producing the
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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
o Inter Unit Quality circle competitions are held quarterly to honour their
o Involvement in Kaizen activities from all the levels.
o Unit and Group level awards are given to best Kaizen activities.
• 5 S
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.
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
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.
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
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
are many causes or reasons for conflict in any work setting. Some of the primary causes
Poor Communication: different communication styles can lead to misunderstandings
between employees or between employee and manager. Lack of communication drives
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
Competing: ‘may the best person win’.
Accommodation: surrendering our own needs and wishes to please the other
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
Clearly articulate the causes of the conflict – openly acknowledging there will be
differing perceptions of the problem(s).
Make a clear statement of why you want the conflict resolved and reasons to work on
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
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
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
Also, try to understand the conflict in objective terms: Is it affecting work performance?
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
• 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
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
Negotiation is a discussion among two or more people with the goal of reaching an
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
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.
• 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 problem...in fact, in extreme cases, the parties go out of their
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
• To study the level of job satisfaction amongst the top management at Minda.
• To assess the behavior of top managers in conflict situations.
• All in the top management are very highly satisfied in their current positions.
• The top management is inclined to be assertive while handling conflicts.
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
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.
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
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
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
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”.
RESULTS & INTERPRETATION
JOB SATISFACTION SCALE
Job Satisfaction Scale – Score
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:
No. of responses % of total
Very Highly Satisfying
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
S. No. Employee Competing
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
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
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.
S. No. Employee Collaborating
JSS Scale Interpretation
1 Q 84% High 25% 78 Highly Satisfying
50% 75 Highly Satisfying
50% 58 Moderately Satisfying
50% 81 Highly Satisfying
50% 85 Highly Satisfying
50% 75 Highly Satisfying
50% 94 Highly Satisfying
50% 74 Highly Satisfying
50% 76 Highly Satisfying
50% 71 Moderately Satisfying
11 A 27% Middle
12 O 18% Low 25% 81 Highly Satisfying
13 P 18% Low 25% 75 Highly Satisfying
14 W 18% Low 25% 91 Highly Satisfying
L 18% Low 25% 112
16 C 8% Low 25% 86 Highly Satisfying
17 S 8% Low 25% 85 Highly Satisfying
18 F 8% Low 25% 55 Moderately Satisfying
8% Low 25% 114
20 K 7% Low 25% 81 Highly Satisfying
21 T 7% Low 25% 89 Highly Satisfying
22 B 7%
Low 25% 105
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