STUD ON

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
AND
RESOLUTION

IN T.V.S sons &ltd Madurai

By
T.PRIYANKHA SHRI
Human resource management (HRM) is the strategic and coherent approach to the
management of an organization's most valued assets - the people working there who
individually and collectively contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the
business. The terms "human resource management" and "human resources” (HR) have
largely replaced the term "personnel management” as a description of the processes
involved in managing people in organizations. In simple words, HRM means employing
people, developing their capacities, utilizing, maintaining and compensating their
services in tune with the job and organizational requirement.

Human resources management involves several processes

• Workforce planning
• Recruitment (sometimes separated into attraction and selection)
• Induction Orientationand Onboarding
• Skills management
• Training and development
• Personnel administration
• Compensation in wage or salary
• Time management
• Travel management (sometimes assigned to accounting rather than HRM)
• Payroll(sometimes assigned to accounting rather than HRM)
• Employee benefits administration
• Personnel cost planning
• Performance appraisal
• Labor relations

Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who

perceive incompatible goals, scare resources, and interference from others in achieving
their goals” (Wilmot and Hocker)

Conflicts exist whenever incompatible activities occur.

Sources of conflict:

•Conflicts may originate from a number of different sources, including:

•Differences in information, beliefs, values, interests, or desires.
•A scarcity of some resource.
•Rivalries in which one person or group competes with another.
Conflicts can be hard to control once they have begun:
When conflict escalates to the point of being out of control, it almost always
yields negative results.

• Conflict may have some desirable consequences.

• Out of control conflict may be destructive.
• Conflict-producing behaviors are more likely from those high in aggression,
dominance, and the need for autonomy.
• An important factor related to conflict is the style of leadership and the resulting
group norms regarding conflict

Conflict management is defined, as “the opportunity to improve situations and

strengthen relationships” can be a fight, disagreement. Misunderstanding etc

1.Proactive conflict management

2.Collaborative conflict management

Boris off and Victor argue that the best strategy for conflict management (negotiation)
depends on the desired outcome.

Negotiation strategies include:

•The trusting collaboration strategy.

•The open subordination strategy.
•The firm competition strategy.
•The active avoidance strategy
•Principled negotiation
•Firm competition
•Soft competition
•Trusting collaboration
•Open subordination
•Focused subordination
•Active avoidance
•Passive avoidance
•Responsive avoidance

•Individuals should understand their own personal triggers to better deal with conflict
situations in the workplace
•Group members should think about other group members early on to identify privately
those individuals and behaviors that may push their buttons.
Conflict Resolution is defined as “a process of working through opposing views in order
to reach a common goal or mutual purpose.”

Key Components of Conflict Resolution:

• Controlling emotional responses

• Seeking understanding

• Identifying needs and common interests

• Seeking mutual benefit or purpose

Control Emotional Responses:

• Start with yourself first – the only person you can control
• Reflect – what story are you telling yourself about the situation?
• Recognize -how you are positioned (your personal bias’, your beliefs, attitudes,
values)
• Clarify what you don’t want?

Seek Understanding:

• Master your story

• Notice your behavior – are you moving to silence or violence?
• Get in touch with your feelings
• Refocus on facts – hold your view as a hypothesis (we are aware of our own
intentions, but we are rarely aware of other person’s intentions)

• Ask for their story

• Make it safe – help make others feel safe to share their story
• Carefully listen – acknowledge feelings
• Be willing to change your story as they add to the pool of shared meaning

Identify Needs and Common Interests:

• Listen and hear clearly what others need

• Look for mutuality
• Use contrasting statements to state clearly what your needs are
Why Contrasting Statements?

• Contrasting statements are Do/Don’t statements that:

• Address others’ concerns that you don’t respect them or that you had a malicious
purpose (e.g., I don’t want . . ..)
• Confirms your respect or clarifies your real purpose (e.g., I do want . . ..)

Contrasting is important because:

• It deals with the misunderstanding that has put safety at risk
• It provides context and proportion
• Can be used as prevention or first aid
• Group Contrasting Role Playing Exercise

Seeking Mutual Benefit or Purpose:

• Commit to seek mutual purpose by truly caring about the interests of others

• Work towards mutual respect – do others believe I respect them?

• Brainstorm new strategies together – invite opposing viewpoints and play devil’s
advocate

• Agree where you can

• If others leave something out, then agree where you can and build from there

• If you differ significantly, don’t suggest others are wrong, rather, compare your
views.

• A set of facts can be used to tell a number of stories

• Once a story is told, it controls us

Points to Consider:

Ask yourself the following questions:

• How did we each contribute to the current situation?

• How can we change it? What can we do about it as we move forward?
 Don’t let the conflict control you.
The conflict is not who we are.

Six things to keep in mind when in a crucial conversation:

• Start with yourself – reflect

• Share your facts

• Tell your story

• Ask for their story (and be open to hearing it!)

• Encourage dialogue by enacting mutual purpose

• Talk, Talk, Talk

OBJECTIVE:

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE:

To study about conflict management and resolution of the employees in T.V.S

sons ltd

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

• To gain good relationships and mutual understanding

• To focus on solving problems
• To Listen to others view and respect to others

• To identify needs and common interest

• To enhance the job performance and success
Need for the study:

To manage conflict:
• Avoidance
• Competition
• Accommodation
• Compromise
• Collaboration
• Conflict Continuum

Competition:

Plus
• The winner is clear
• Winners usually experience gains
Minus
• Establishes the battleground for the next conflict
• May cause worthy competitors to withdraw or leave the organization

Accommodation:

Plus
• Curtails conflict situation
• Enhances ego of the other
Minus
• Sometimes establishes a precedence
• Does not fully engage participants

Compromise:

Plus
• Shows good will
 • Establishes friendship
Minus
• No one gets what he or she want
• May feel like a dead end

Collaboration:

Plus
• Everyone “wins”
• Creates good feelings
Minus
• Hard to achieve since no one knows how
• Often confusing since players can “win” something they didn’t know they wanted

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

•Build good relationships before conflict occurs

•Do not let small problems escalate; deal with them as they arise
•Respect differences
•Listen to others’ perspectives on the conflict situation
•Acknowledge feelings before focussing on facts
•Focus on solving problems, not changing people
•If you can’t resolve the problem, turn to someone who can help
•Remember to adapt your style to the situation and persons involved

Whether dealing with family members or hired personnel, sooner or later challenges will
arise. It is unlikely that we find ourselves at a loss of words when dealing with family
members. Communication patterns with those closest to us are not always positive,
however, often falling into a predictable and ineffective exchange.
With hired personnel and strangers, we may often try and put forth our best behavior. Out
of concern for how we are perceived, we may err in saying too little when things go
wrong. We may suffer for a long time before bringing issues up. This is especially so
during what could be called a "courting period." Instead of saying things directly, we
often try to hint.
But the honeymoon is likely to end sooner or later. At some point this "courting
behavior" often gets pushed aside out of necessity. We may find it easier to sweep
problems under the psychological rug until the mound of dirt is so large we cannot help
but trip over it. Sometime after that transition is made, it may become all too easy to start
telling the employee or co-worker exactly what has to be done differently. An isolated
episode such as the one between Beth and Carlos may or may not affect their future
working relationship.
Persons differ in their sensitivity to comments or actions of others, as well as their ability
to deal with the stress created by a conflict situation. While it is important that we are
sensitive to how we affect others, there is much virtue in not taking offense easily
ourselves. Or by finding constructive outlets to dissipate stressful feelings (e.g., exercise,
music, reading, an act of service to another, or even a good night's sleep). It does little
good, however, to appear unaffected while steam builds up within and eventually
explodes.
When disagreements emerge it is easy to hear without listening. People involved in
conflict often enlist others to support their perspective and thus avoid trying to work
matters out directly with the affected person.
Our self-esteem is more fragile than most of us would like to admit (see Chapter 6,
Sidebar 3). Unresolved conflict often threaten whatever self-esteem we may possess. By
finding someone who agrees with us, we falsely elevate that self-esteem. But we only
build on sand. Our self-esteem will be constructed over a firmer foundation when we
learn to deal effectively with the conflict. In Spanish there are two related words, self-
esteem is called autoestima, while false self-esteem is called amor propio (literally, "self-
love").
It takes more skill, effort and commitment--and, at least in the short run, more stress--to
face the challenge together with the other person involved in the dispute. Certainly it
seems as if it would be easier to fight, withdraw, or give in. Yet in the long run, working
through difficulties together will help us live a less stressful and more fulfilling life.
Fighting it out. A man sat in his train compartment looking out into the serene Russian
countryside. Two women entered to join him. One held a lap dog. The women looked at
this man with contempt, for he was smoking. In desperation, one of the women got up,
lifted up the window, took the cigar off the man’s lips, and threw it out. The man sat
there for a while, and then proceeded to re-open the window, grab the woman’s dog from
off her lap, and throw it out the window. No, this is not a story from today’s Russian
newspaper, instead it is from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s 19th century novel, The Idiot. The
number and seriousness of workplace violence cases in A agriculture seems to be on the
rise, and farm employers can respond with effective policies and increased education.
Yielding. While most can readily see the negative consequences and ugliness of
escalating contention, we often do not consider how unproductive and harmful
withdrawing or giving in can be. Naturally, there are occasions when doing so is not only
wise, but honorable (as there are times to stand firm). If a person feels obligated to
continually give in and let another have his way, such yielding individual may stop caring
and withdraw psychologically from the situation.
Avoidance. When we engage in avoidance, it only weakens already fragile relationships.
These "others" (e.g., sympathetic co-workers) usually tend to agree with us. They do so
not just because they are our friends, but mostly because they see the conflict and
possible solutions from our perspective. After all, they heard the story from us. Once a
person has the support of a friend, she may feel justified in her behavior and not try to put
as much energy into solving the conflict.
One particularly damaging form of conflict avoidance is to send someone else to deliver a
message or confront another on our behalf. At best, the individual not spoken to directly
will be hurt that such a tactic was taken. At worst, the go-between person cherishes the
power trip involved, allowing himself to become a sort of arbiter in the conflict.
We often are too quick to assume that a disagreement has no possible mutually
acceptable solution. Talking about disagreements may result in opportunities to
strengthen relationships and improve productivity. Obviously, talking problems through
is not so easy. Confronting an issue may require (1) exposing oneself to ridicule or
rejection, (2) recognizing we may have contributed to the problem, and (3) willingness to
change.
We can reduce stress, resolve challenges and increase productivity through effective
dialogue. Such a conversation entails as much listening as talking. While effective two-
way exchanges will happen naturally some of the time, for the most part they need to be
carefully planned. There may be some pain--or at least moving us out of our comfort
zones--involved in discussing challenging issues, but the rewards are satisfaction and
improved long-term relationships.
When faced with challenges, we tend to review possible alternatives and come up with
the best solution given the data at hand. Unwanted options are discarded. While some
decisions may take careful consideration, analysis, and even agony, we solve others
almost instinctively. Our best solution becomes our position or stance in the matter. Our
needs, concerns and fears all play a part in coming up with such a position.
Misunderstanding and dissent can grow their ugly heads when our solution is not the
same as those of others.
Several foes often combine to create contention:
Our first enemy is the natural need to want to explain our side first. After all, we reason,
if they understand our perspective, they will come to the same conclusions we did.
Our second enemy is our ineffectiveness as listeners. Listening is much more than being
quiet so we can have our turn. It involves a real effort to understand another person's
perspective.
Our third enemy is fear. Fear that we will not get our way. Fear of losing something we
cherish. Fear we will be made to look foolish or lose face. Fear of the truth ... that we
may be wrong.
Our fourth enemy is the assumption that one of us has to lose if the other is going to win:
that such differences can only be solved competitively.
The good news is that there are simple and effective tools to spin positive solutions and
strengthen relationships out of disagreements. But let not the simplicity of the concepts
obscure the challenge of carrying them out consistently. Certainly life gives us plenty of
opportunities to practice and attempt to improve. However, the foes outlined above take
effort to overcome.

Tools for Improved Communication:

Two principles have contributed greatly to the productive handling of disagreements. The
first, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," was introduced by Steven Covey,
in Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. If we encourage others to explain their side
first, they will be more apt to listen to ours.
For instance, I sometimes need to interview farm personnel about their feelings on
various subjects. One day I came across a farm owner who was less than enthusiastic
about my project.
It was clear from his words and tone that I would not be interviewing anyone on his farm,
so I switched my focus to listening. The farmer shared concerns on a number of
troublesome issues and we parted amiably. When I was on my way to my vehicle the
farmer yelled, "Go ahead!"
"Go ahead and what?" I turned around and inquired. To my surprise he responded, "Go
ahead and interview my workers." The Covey principle was at work.
The second principle, introduced by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their seminal work,
Getting to Yes, is that people in disagreement should focus on their needs rather than on
their positions. By concentrating on positions, we tend to underscore our disagreements.
When we concentrate on needs, we find we have more in common than what we had
assumed. Ury and Fisher suggest we attempt to satisfy the sum of both their needs and
our needs.
When the light goes on we realize that it is not a zero sum game (where one person has to
lose for the other to win). Nor is it necessary to solve disagreements with a lame
compromise. Instead, often both parties can be winners. Individuals can learn how to
keep communication lines open and solve challenges when things go wrong. Learning to
disagree amicably and work through problems is perhaps one of the most important
interpersonal skills we can develop.
Putting it all together
If we come right out and tell someone, "I disagree," we are apt to alienate that person.
Successful negotiators are more likely to label their intentions, such as a desire to ask a
difficult question or provide a suggestion, and are less prone to label disagreement.
Problems are likely, however, to increase if we put all our needs aside to focus on another
person’s perspective. The other party may think we have no needs and be quite taken
back when we introduce them all of a sudden, almost as an afterthought.
In order to avoid such unproductive shock, I like the idea of briefly saying something
along these lines. "I see that we look at this issue from different perspectives. While I
want to share my needs and views with you later, let me first focus on your thoughts,
needs, and observations." At this point, we can now put our needs aside, attempt to truly
listen, and say: "So, help me understand what your concerns are regarding...."
That is the easy part. The difficulty comes in fulfilling such a resolution to really listen to
resist the tendency to interrupt with objections no matter how unfounded some of the
comments may be. Instead of telling someone that we understand (just so they can finish
and give us a turn to present our perspective), we can be much more effective by
revealing exactly what it is that we understand. All along we must resist, as we listen, the
temptation to bring up our viewpoints and concerns. In trying to comprehend, we may
need to put our understanding in terms of a question, or a tentative statement. This way
we show true awareness.

We may have to refine our statement until the other stakeholder approves it as a correct
understanding of his position or need It is necessary not only to understand, but for the
other person to feel understood. Only now can we begin to explain our perspective and
expect to be fully listened to. Once we have laid out our concerns, we can focus on a
creative solution. If we have had no history with someone, or a negative one, we need to
use more caution when disagreeing. The potential for a disagreement to be side-railed
into contention is always there. It helps if we have made goodwill deposits over time.
Involving a Third Party

Sometimes differences in organizational level, personality or self-esteem among the

participants in a disagreement require the participation of a third party. For instance, one
supervisor had resorted to bullying and implied threats to get his way. "I would have
gladly tried to find a way to help my supervisor achieve his goals," the subordinate
explained through her tears. "But now I am so sensitized, I am afraid of talking to him."

Telling employees to work out their troubles on their own, grow up, or shake hands and
get along may work occasionally, but most of the time the conflict will only be sent
underground to resurface later in more destructive ways.

A better approach is to allow employees to meet with a third party, or mediator (which, in
some cases, may be a manager or the farm owner), to assist them in their own resolution
of the conflict.

All things being equal, an outside mediator has a greater chance of succeeding. An
insider may be part of the problem, may be perceived as favoring one of the stakeholders,
and the stakeholders may be hesitant to share confidential information with an insider.

If the insider is a supervisor, the mediator role becomes more difficult, as supervisors
tend to become overly directive, taking more of an arbiter's role and forcing a decision
upon the parties.

The conflict management process is more apt to succeed if stakeholders have respect for
the mediator's integrity, impartiality, and ability. Respect for the mediator is important, so
stakeholders will be on their best behavior, an important element in successful
negotiation. Although not always the case, over-familiarity with an inside mediator may
negate this "best behavior" effect.

An outside mediator should treat issues with confidentiality. Exceptions are such
instances as where illegal activities have taken place (e.g., sexual harassment).

All parties should be informed of exceptions to the confidentiality rule ahead of time.
Any sharing of information based on the exceptions needs to be done on a need-to-know
basis to minimize giving out information that could hurt one or both of the parties.
Employees may be less hesitant to speak out when assured of confidentiality. Sometimes
conflicts involve personal issues.

A much more sensitive situation involves the role of the mediator when stakeholders are
not able to come to a negotiated resolution. Researchers have found that, in some
instances, mediation works best when the third party is able to change roles, and in the
event that mediation fails, become an arbiter. On the plus side, stakeholders may put their
best foot forward and try hard to resolve issues. Unfortunately, while some mediators
may be able to play both roles without manipulating the situation, the road is left wide
open for abuse of power. Furthermore, individuals may feel coerced and not trust a
mediator when what is said in confidence now may be taken against them later.

Mediation :

Mediation helps stakeholders discuss issues, repair past injuries, and develop the tools
needed to face disagreements effectively. Mediators may help participants glimpse at
their blind spots, broaden their perspectives, and even muddle through the problem-
solving process. Yet, successful mediators remember that the challenges are owned by
the stakeholders and do not attempt to short-circuit the process by solving challenges for
them.

Mediators facilitate the process by:

• Understanding each participant’s perspective through a pre-caucus.

• Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving the challenge through
mediation.
• Setting ground rules for improved communication.
• Coaching participants through the joint session.
• Equalizing power (e.g., between persons in different organizational levels).
• Helping participants plan for future interaction.

Understanding each participant’s perspective through a pre-caucus:

The pre-caucus is a separate meeting between the mediator and each stakeholder before
the stakeholders are brought together in a joint session. During the pre-caucus the
mediator will briefly explain the issue of confidentiality and the mechanics of the
mediation process so stakeholders will not be surprised or have a sense of being lost.

The mediator also should offer stakeholders the opportunity for regular caucusing (a
meeting away from the other stakeholder) any time they feel a need for it. It is important
that stakeholder control is emphasized throughout the process. Participants should not
agree on something just for the sake of agreement. If there are yet unmet needs, these
should be brought up. Sometimes, a few changes in a potential solution can make the
difference between an agreement that will fail or succeed.

While there are hundreds of factors that can affect the successful resolution of a conflict,
the pre-caucus is one of the pillars of conflict management.It is especially useful when
dealing with deep-seated interpersonal conflict management and mediation.

Although any talking between the mediator and one of the stakeholders alone can be
perceived as suspect and potentially influence the neutrality of the mediator, such fears
assume a mediator-directive approach where the third party wields much power and often
acts as a quasi-arbitrator. When the mediation process is understood--from the
beginning--as one where each of the stakeholders retains control over the outcome, less
importance is given to mediator neutrality.

The pre-caucus provides each stakeholder an opportunity to be heard and understood.

One of the reasons why conflict situations are so challenging, is the natural tendency of
stakeholders to each want to express their respective perspectives first which to some
degree takes place in the pre-caucus. The more deep-seated and emotional the conflict,
the greater this need.

At a dairy operation, I had just been introduced to one of the stakeholders by the farm
owner. As soon as the farmer left us alone to begin our pre-caucus, the stakeholder broke
into tears. A similar situation took place at a row crop farm enterprise where one of the
farm managers began to cry, ostensibly because of other issues pressing heavily upon
him. Had these men come immediately into a joint meeting with their respective
contenders, their feelings of vulnerability might just as easily have turned into anger and
defensiveness.

One manager told me that the pre-caucus would be very short with a milker who was not
a man of many words. The milker spoke for almost two hours. By the time we finished,
he felt understood and had gained confidence, and by the time we were into the middle of
the joint session with the other stakeholder, this same employee was even laughing when
it was appropriate. I have found that these "silent types" will often open up during a pre-
caucus.

When a stakeholder feels understood, an enormous emotional burden is lifted; stress and
defensiveness are reduced. This makes people more confident and receptive to listen to
the other party.

Separating the people from the conflict:

Winslade and Monk in Narrative Mediation argue that while people are theoretically free
in terms of what they say in a conversation, most often stakeholders feel their responses
are influenced by the remarks of the other. They often see themselves entrapped within
the conflict cycle.

Winslade and Monk ask individuals how they might have felt forced by the conflict to do
or say things that they wish they had not. Or, how the conflict has affected them
negatively in other ways. By placing the blame on the conflict itself, the mediator allows
the stakeholders to save face and slowly distance themselves from the conflict-saturated
story. Such a situation can help stakeholders detach themselves from the conflict long
enough to see that each has a choice as to whether he wants to continue feeding the
conflict. The authors further suggest that if the mediator listens with an ethic of curiosity,
unexpected benefits are likely to arise. Instead of merely listening to confirm hunches and
reconcile facts, the third party realizes that stakeholders often bring to mediation an olive
branch along with their anger and despair. Thus, stakeholders often hold the very keys to
the reconstruction of broken relationships and to the solving of challenges. But the
mediator has to have enough confidence in people and in the process to allow these issues
to surface and to be on the lookout for them so they do not go unnoticed.

During the pre-caucus, the mediator notes as many issues as possible from each
stakeholder (they often overlap considerably) and later introduces them in a systematic
fashion for the stakeholders to discuss in the joint session. The more issues raised, the
greater the opportunity for discussion and the less likelihood that important issues will be
left out.

Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving challenge through

mediation:

There seems to be a pattern in deep-seated organizational interpersonal conflict: each

stakeholder is overly distracted with the stress of the conflict, has difficulty sleeping at
night, and is generally thinking of quitting. Sometimes individuals may be in denial about
the negative effect that contention has in their lives. One manager claimed that he just got
angry and exploded, but that his anger did not last long. He explained that he did not hold
grudges, that by the next day he had put aside any bad feelings for the other person.
During a mediation session this same manger admitted that a recent confrontation with
the other stakeholder had made him so angry it left him sick for a couple of days. Part of
the role of the mediator in meeting individually with each stakeholder is to help
individuals visualize a life without that stress.

In the process of meeting with the stakeholders, the mediator can make a more informed
determination as to whether to proceed with mediation or recommend arbitration or
another approach. As effective as mediation can be, under certain circumstances more
harm than good can result from bringing parties together. The purpose of mediation is not
to simply provide a safe place for stakeholders to exchange insults!

Tran formative opportunities:

In The Promise of Mediation, Bush and Folger suggest that mediators watch for and
recognize Tran formative opportunities in terms of recognition that can be offered
between participants. Such recognition may involve compliments or showing
understanding, empathy, or other forms of mutual validation. A fruit grower, almost as an
aside, had something positive to say about the other party, "One thing I really value about
the farm manager is that he shows pride in his work--something I really admired in my
father." The grower reacted negatively to the idea of sharing this with the farm manager,
yet decided to do so his own during the joint session.
Looking for the positive. While a number of issues can affect the likely success of a joint
mediation session, perhaps none is as telling as asking each stakeholder what they value
in the other contender. This question should be asked after the participant has had a
chance to vent, and the mediator has shown understanding for the challenges from the
stakeholder's perspective.

There is a human tendency not to find anything of value in a person with whom there has
been deep-seated contention. After a person feels understood by the mediator, there is a
greater likelihood that the stakeholder will see a little light of good in his contender.

Without this tiny light of hope, without this little olive branch, there is no point in
proceeding. If there is nothing of significance that one person can value about the other,
more harm than good can come out of the mediation. And it is not enough to say that the
other person "is always on time," "drives a nice pick up," "is attractive," or "does not
smell."

Sometimes one of the stakeholders will be more noble than the other, a little more prone
to see good in the other. On one occasion, I had already met with such an individual in a
pre-caucus and asked the second stakeholder, during his pre-caucus, for the positive
characteristics of the first. When the answer was “none,” I shared the positive things that
were said about him by the first employee and asked again. Because stakeholders want to
seem reasonable, especially after hearing something positive about themselves, I was
surprised by a second refusal by the more reticent stakeholder to find anything of value
about the other.

“Well, if there is nothing positive you can say about the other employee, there is no
purpose in attempting a conflict management session together,” I explained. I suggested a
short break. When we returned, the taciturn stakeholder had prepared a long list of
positive attributes about the other employee. I have since realized, that if a contender is
not ready to say something positive about another, an additional pre-caucus may be
needed.

Repairing past injuries:

Occasionally, it helps to role-play to identify potential pitfalls ahead of time. For

instance, at one farm operation, a manager's angry outbursts were well known. Martin,
the manager, had minimized the seriousness of his problem. A co-mediator role-played
the other party in the contention. "Martin," she began. "When you get angry at me, shout
at me and use profanity, I feel very badly."

"Well, I am so sorry I have used bad language with you and been angry at you," Martin
began nicely. "But...." And then Martin began to excuse himself and to place conditions
on controlling his anger. At this moment I had to interrupt. An apology with a comma or
a but is not a true apology, but merely a statement of justification, I explained. In total
frustration Martin turned to me and said, "Look, everyone has their style. Some people
deal with disagreement this way or that. I am an expert in intimidation. If I can't use
intimidation, what can I do so I don't get run over? Am I supposed to just sit here and tell
him how nice he is and not bring up any of the areas of disagreement?"

When mediators have done their homework during the pre-caucus, the joint session can
be very positive. This case involving Martin was one of the most difficult I had ever dealt
with, yet once the joint session began, both managers did most of the talking. They were
extremely cordial, attentive, and amicable, showing understanding for each other.
Although the problems were not solved from one day to the next, a year later there had
been much positive progress.

Setting ground rules for improved communication:

Individuals attempt to cultivate an identity or projection of who they are. For instance, a
person may see herself as an intellectual, another may see himself as an outdoors person,
a cowboy, or an artist. Such identity labels are just a small part of a much deeper and
complex set of traits that any individual would value.

An important part of mindful interpersonal communication is the mutual validation of

such identities, through a process of identity negotiation. People tend to build bonds with
those who seem supportive of the identity they attempt to project. Such mutual validation
is one of the keys to effective interpersonal relations. Lack of validation normally plays a
vital role in interpersonal conflict, as well. Some of the most hurtful things another
individual can say to us, are an attack on our self-image or valued identity.

People do not just project identities of who they are, but also the personal qualities of
who they wish to become. When a person's weaknesses are exposed, he may reason that
it is not worth trying to pretend anymore. Because those who are closest to us are more
likely to have seen our weaknesses, we may first stop pretending with family, close
friends, and people at work. This attitude also plays an important part in interpersonal
conflict.

One of the important roles of a mediator is to help stakeholders who have crossed the line
and stopped pretending, to re-cross back, and thus get a second chance at a relationship.
If we have decided to thus change our behavior, it helps to clearly state our intentions
ahead of time, so that our new and corrected behavior is not misunderstood.

Coaching and modeling effective interaction styles is an ongoing task for the mediator.
The objective is for stakeholders to increase their understanding of effective interpersonal
relations. Before conflicting parties meet, it helps to set ground rules that will help parties
avoid hurtful comments, and even increase positive validating ones. Ground rules will
help the conflict from escalating and save time once mediation is under way. It is not the
role of the mediator to simply allow the contenders to exchange cynical remarks, insults,
name calling, and threats in a psychologically safer environment. Nor should the
mediator allow contenders to drag her into the controversy. Instead, the mediator may
have to remind employees to direct their comments to (and keep visual contact with) the
other person involved in the disagreement.
Overly vague or broad statements such as, "You are inconsiderate," or, "You are
overbearing," do little to facilitate mutual understanding. Specific issues, or events, and
what motivated each to act in certain ways, may be more useful. In the pre-caucus, ask
the stakeholder using such sweeping statements for examples of times when the other
individual acted in inconsiderate, overbearing, untrustworthy or selfish ways. These
behaviors can later be discussed in the joint session.

Name-calling can have a very negative effect. For instance, a Mexican dairy employee
called another employee a racist. That is a pretty big word, with very strong connotations.
The other stakeholder, a Portuguese milker, was very hurt by the use of such a word. The
mediator stopped the conversation to make sure all were defining the word in the same
way. "Are you saying that this milker treats you different because you are Mexican and
he is Portuguese?" After the term was well explained and a few more questions asked, the
Mexican milker ended up apologizing, and the Portuguese employee had the opportunity
to tell a story that illustrated he was not racist. It is not the role of the mediator to reject
such as accusation without allowing stakeholders to speak what is in their mind.

Beside name-calling, the use of other labels can increase contention. Calling someone by
a label, even when the person identifies with such (e.g., a person's nationality), can be
offensive depending on the tone and context. A more subtle use of labeling, one that can
have the same negative effect, is describing our own perspective as belonging to a
desirable label (e.g., a particularly cherished philosophy, principle or belief), while
assigning that of another to an undesirable one.

Stakeholders also look for ways to enlist even theoretical others into supporting their
views. They may attempt to inflate the importance of their opinions with such statements
as, "everyone else agrees with me when I say that...." Or, attribute a higher source of
authority to their words: "According to such and such (an author, or respected person)..."
A stakeholder may wish to discount the opinion of others by speaking of their experience:
"In my twenty years of experience..." Once again, the tone and context of the
conversation may make some of these statements appropriate in one circumstance and not
in another. People may resort to dysfunctional tactics when the force of their argument
does not stand on its own merits.

Along with labeling, threats--both direct and veiled--can reduce a stakeholder’s

negotiating power. When these intimidation tactics are bluffs, then the loss of negotiation
power is further magnified.

The mediator may also coach employees into owning up to their feelings by using "I"
statements. "I feel upset when you change my radio station while I am milking," is
preferable to "You make me angry when...."

Only one person should speak at a time, while the other makes every possible effort to
understand what is being said. One defensive tactic is to change the topic. While
sometimes two topics are so closely related that they cannot be separated, generally new
topics can be placed on a "list of other matters" to be brought up later.
Workers involved in highly charged conflict situations frequently try to ridicule their
contenders by distorting or exaggerating what has been said. I call this distorted
mirroring. For instance, an employee may inaccurately mirror a comment, such as: "So
you are telling me that you never want me to..." or, "I get it, you think you are the only
one who ..." "You used to be [something positive] but now [negative statement]," "It
seems that you are always ... these days."

Participants may sometimes seek shelter from a true give-and-take with such statements
as, "That's just the way I am,"or, "Can't you take a joke?" While a mediator cannot force
someone out of his shell, he may help participants understand the detracting effects these
statements may have. The earlier the mediator disallows distortions or manipulative
tactics; the sooner employees will realize that this is not a verbal battle.

A mediator may also need to coach employees on how to formulate questions and
comments. Participants need to talk without putting each other on the defensive or
coming across as accusatory. Especially when under the stress of a conflict, people will
be quite sensitive to intended and non-intended statements of double meaning. A critical
role for the mediator may be to ask for clarification or coach stakeholders in properly
reflecting statements.

Coaching participants through the joint session.

The time has come to bring both stakeholders together into a joint session. A mechanical
aspect to mediation that is extremely powerful is the seating arrangement. Have the two
parties sit facing each other such that they are in a position to have good eye contact, yet
making sure there is enough space between them so their personal space is not violated.
This arrangement underscores the message that they are there to talk to each other.
Because people who are in conflict often discount the other person, having to exchange
eye contact can be powerful medicine toward reconciliation. A table may be appropriate
in some circumstances.

The mediator sits far enough away that stakeholders would have to turn their heads if
they wished to make eye contact with him. It is not easy for the stakeholders to check if
they have "scored a point," or to enlist the mediator to their side. If the stakeholders make
such an attempt, the mediator reminds them that the person they need to convince is the
other party.

The seating arrangement described above is such a powerful tool, that I have seen people
apologize to each other, be more considerate, call each other by name, and use many
positive behaviors even when the complete mediation approach outlined in this chapter
was not used. The seating arrangement is a second mediation pillar. Both of these pillars
are integral to the Party-Directed Mediation conflict management approach
IMPORTANCE OF STUDT:

Managing conflict means you need to develop several styles and decide which is
valuable at any given point of conflict

Competing Style - The competing style of conflict is when someone asserts their
position completely disregarding other points of view. If you are collaborating on a
project, this can be a potentially damaging style of conflict. Symptoms that a competing
style of conflict has overtaken your collaboration project include poor participation on the
part of team members, constant tension, or angry outbursts.

Avoiding Style - The avoiding style of conflict occurs when no one is satisfied in the
project. Often times the avoiding style of conflict is practiced in order to delay project
progress or procrastinate. Symptoms that your project may be exhibiting the effects of
this style of conflict include a low-level of input, decisions that are forced, a breakdown
in communication, and problems that could have been solved much earlier.
Compromising Style - The compromising style of conflict seeks to find a middle ground
between everyone's concerns. Symptoms that your collaboration project suffers at the
hands of the compromising style of conflict include missing the mark on project goals,
waning trust between members, and cynicism.

Collaborating Style - The collaborating style of conflict tries to satisfy all desires.
Symptoms that your project is suffering at the hands of a collaborating style of conflict
include trivial matters receiving dominance, lack of responsibility, and a sensation of
having too much work to do.

Accommodating Style - Concerns of one are given up for the sake of others. Symptoms
of an accommodating style overtaking your projects include good ideas that receive little
attention, projects without clear leaders, and people who do not contribute

Conflict will occur when you do not have respect for the other feelings of another
individual or when they do not have respect for you. You can try to deflect conflict by
using positive communication skills as discussed in this book. You will know when you
are in conflict as it will consist of unproductive, negative communication. If conflict can
be briefly defined – that is the perfect definition. While there is good conflict, negative
conflict is defined by negative communication. If it continues, it can keep on escalating.
Not too many people are happy when they are embroiled in a conflict. While some seem
to thrive on drama, they are usually very unhappy people who suffer from an inferiority
complex and need to be the center of attention. For the most part, people try to avoid
conflict. How do you identify and resolve conflict? For an exercise, try to think of the last
time you experienced conflict in your life. It can be something trivial or a major conflict
at work or home. Do you remember the events that led up to the conflict? Could you have
stopped the conflict before it escalated? How long did the conflict continue? How did you
feel while you were experiencing the conflict? Did you feel helpless and want it to end,
or did it make you feel energized? How did the conflict end? Was it a positive ending?
Who made the first move to end the conflict or was this accomplished by a mediator? Try
to imagine yourself in a conflict with a friend, significant other or colleague. Do you see
any
situation in the near future where you may have some sort of conflict? Are the warning
signs there? Can you think of how you would like the conflict to end? Do you know of
any techniques that you can use to diffuse the conflict? How do you think these will
work? Whenever there is a storm brewing, it is often human nature to go somewhere safe
and wait it out. A conflict is like a storm, but instead of hiding out, you are better off to
prepare for the storm
Conflict—what is it—Conflict resolution techniques
It is important for everyone to have conflict resolution techniques. Conflict is sometimes
needed to clear the air. As much as you try, you will not be able to avoid every situation
that involves conflict. But you can try to resolve conflict without it causing too much
damage. Conflict takes its toll on us both mentally and physically.
Company Profile

T.V.S trading stems from the personal philosophy of the group’s founder
Sri.T.V.Sundram Iyengar. A man of tremendous vision, he had the foresight to recognize
that progress in the transport industry was vital to the growth of the foundation of
customer satisfaction. Indeed, it is given T.V.S the impetus to grow from the single unit
of 1911 to the multi company enterprise, it is today. He had the support of his better, half
Mr.Lakshmiammal who was known for her simplification and land heart. It was 31 years
of long dedicated and dynamic hard word that made the man a legend and the name still
lives in many hearts. When Sri.T.V.Sundram Iyengar started the first ever-rural bus
service between Madurai and Pudukottai in the Sate of Tamilnadu. This transport
company grew to be the largest of its kind in India

Vision:

To create integrated supply chain for their customer by providing a high quality
and cost effective logistics services globally this will be of its class in the industry with
respect to practices and procedure.

Mission:
 To remain in the prime position in the field of automobile distribution business
by extending dedicated service to its clients. The aim of the company is to profit form
40crores (2006) to 125crores (2009).

Office working time:

Morning 8.30 AM to Evening 5.30 PM

TVS Ethics:

T- Trust
V- Value
S- Service

Quality Policy:

TVS Company is committed to achieve & sustain excellence in service & retain
the customer through continual improvement.

Core Strength of TVS:

“Relationship and Trust’

“Customer centricity”

Core Strategy:

• 100% effort in all the services

• Building bond and trust with the employee and customers.
• Maintaining customer satisfaction

Strategic Business Units:

• Dealership line of Business (DLOB)

• AL SBU
• E.Comet SBU
• M&M SBU
• Parts Distribution SBU
• Customer Centric Business
• My TVS-24*7 Emergency service
• My TVS-All car service
• My TVS-Quality used cars
• My TVS-Collision repair service
• Petroleum products.
• Insurance.
 • Special products SBU.
• Tools & Garages equipment SBU.

TVS Group of Companies:

(1) Axles India Limited

(2) Aparajitha total solutions
(3) Balika tours and travels
(4) Brakes India limited
(5) India Japan lighting limited
(6) India motor parts and accessorial limited
(7) Indian Nippon electrical limited
(8) India equipment leasing limited
(9) Lakshmi Auto components limited
(10) Lakshmi General Finance limited
(11) Lucas Indian limited
(12) Southern Roadways
(13) Sundram clayton limited
(14) TVS electronics limited
(15) TVS finance limited

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH – MEANING

Research is an art of scientific investigation. According to Redmen and Mary

defines research as a “systematic effort to gain knowledge”.

Research methodology is way to systematically solve the research problem. It is a

plan of action for a research project and explains in detail how data are collected and
analyzed. This research study is a descriptive research study.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A research design is a plan that specifies the objectives of the study, method to be
adopted in the data collection, tools in data analysis and hypothesis to be framed.
 “A research design is an arrangement of condition for collection and analysis of
data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to research purpose with economy in
procedure”.

NATURE OF DATA

Primary data

The primary data are collected from the employees of T.V.S sons& ltd through a
direct structured questionnaire and interview.

Secondary data

Company profiles, websites, magazines, articles were used widely as a support to

primary data.

SAMPLING SIZE AND TECHNIQUE

Size of the sample

It refers to the number of items to be selected from the universe to constitute as a

sample. In these study 150 employees of T.V.S sons ltd in MADURAI was selected as
size of sample.

Sample design

The sampling technique used in this study is simple random sampling method.
This method is also called as the method of chance selection. Each and every item of
population has equal chance to be included in the sample.

Questionnaire
 The questions are arranged logical sequence. The questionnaire consists of a
variety of questions presented to the employees for the response. Dichotomous questions,
multiple-choice questions, rating scale questions were used in constructing questionnaire.

STATISTICAL TOOLS USED:

To analyze and interpret collected data the following statistical tools were used.
1) Percentage method
2) Weighted average method
3) Chi-square analysis
4) Correlation
Percentage method:

The percentage is used for making comparison between two or more

series of data. It can be generally calculated as

No. Of respondents favorable

X 100
Percentage of respondent =
Total no of respondents

Weighted average method

The weighted average method can be calculated by the following formula

∑ WX
XW =
∑X

Here

XW represents the weighted average

X represents the value of variable
W represents the weight given to the variable.

Chi-square analysis:
 Chi-square analysis in statistics is to test the goodness of fit to verify the
distribution of observed data with assumed theoretical distribution. Therefore it is
a measure to study the divergence of actual and expected frequencies.

The formula for computing chi-square is as follows.

Chi-square = ∑ (O-E) 2
E

The calculated value of chi-square is compared with the table of chi-square for
the given degrees of freedom at the specified level of significance. If the calculated
value is greater than the tabulated value then the difference between the observed
frequency and the expected frequency are significant. the degrees of freedom is (n-2)
where ‘n’ is number of observed frequencies and in case of contingency table the
degrees of freedom is (C-1) (R-1) where C is number of columns and R is number of
rows.
Correlation

The correlation analysis deals with association between two or more

variables. The correlation does not necessary imply causation or functional relationship
though the existence of causation always implies correlation. By itself it establish only
co- variance

There are two types of correlation

1. Positive Correlation
2. Negative Correlation

If two variables move in same direction then they are positively correlated.
On the other hand if the two variable move in opposite direction then they are negatively
correlated. It can be calculated as

Cov (x, y) = 1/n ∑ x y – x y

 σ x = √1/n Σ x2 – x 2

σ y = √1/n Σ y2 – y 2

r= Cov(x, y)

σ x x σ y

Here,

r = co-efficient of correlation.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Dooley and Fryxell (1999) found that conflict of ideas at the early stage of decision
making (idea formulation) was desirable. However, it can cause problems at a later stage
when the ideas have to be implemented. Conflict of feelings are often called personality
conflict

Borisoff and Victor (1998) argue that the best strategy for conflict management
(negotiation) depends on the desired outcome.

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) outline four principles that compose principled
negotiation.

• Separate the people from the problem.

• Focus on interests, not positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain.
• Seek objective criteria

Diane Yale (1988) outlines three metaphorical approaches to conflict:

The competitive, adversarial metaphor

• Often results in a winner and loser in the resolution process.

The problem-solving metaphor

• If [conflict] is focused on problem solving, everything that comes at you is seen
as a problem or a solution.

The creative orientation metaphor

• Brings an innovative quality to group conflict resolution.

Walker and Harris (1995) offer the following practical tips .Encouraging behavior
occurs when a team member:

1. Avoids feelings or perceptions that imply the other person is wrong or needs to change.
2. Communicates a desire to work together to explore a problem or seek a solution.
3. Exhibits behavior that is spontaneous and destruction-free.
4. Identifies with another team member’s problems, shares feelings, and accepts the team
member’s reaction.
5. Treats other team members with respect and trust.
6. Investigates issues rather than taking sides on them.
 The same principles can be applied to negotiating with others outside your team,
or with a supplier or customer.