INTRODUCTION:

The case study ‘Mental Block’ is all about co-ordination, co-operation, understanding and
patience, in and between each and every working members of an organisation. Mr. Vachani is
a Quality Controller for four divisions in a family-owned Manufacturing Organisation in
which functional heads enjoy a large measure of autonomy. Mr. Bose is the Production
Superintendent of one of the four divisions of the company. Both these senior executives, are
accountable to the General Manager of the company and they gel well despite of their usual
differences and disagreements over issues concerning quality.

One fine day Mr. Bose invades Mr. Vachani’s office and aggressively informs him by
shouting that a Senior Inspector, Mr. Sundaram, had misbehaved with him and that he was
not ready to tolerate such a behaviour and that he wanted Mr. Vachani to take an immediate
action against Mr. Sundaram. On being asked about the incidence in details Mr. Bose
narrated to Vachani that on the advice of Mr. Sundaram he had found one of his workmen
carrying out an out-of-routine job. When being enquired about this Mr. Sundaram did not
give him a satisfactory answer rather reacted by misbehaving and making rude remarks to
him.

Mr. Vachani promised Mr. Bose that he would discuss the matter with Mr. Sundaram and that
he would decide the best course of action, though of course, Mr. Bose was free to take any
alternative action he felt necessary.

Later, on that day when Mr. Sundaram visited Mr. Vachani in his office to discuss various
business mattersMr. Sundaram himself narrated the conflict he had with Mr. Bose to Mr.
Vachani stating that he reported to Mr. Bose after being called twice because he was busy
with his designated job also he clarified about the workman who he assigned to work-out-of-
routine job, because it became necessary in view of the important inspection that occurred on
Monday about which even Mr. Bose was aware, and thus, his initiative was in the interest of
the firm. Further he added that Mr. Bose had used foul language to address him and asked
him to ‘get lost’, on account of which he lost his cool and as a result hot words were
exchanged between them.

Listening to the matter Mr. Vachani persuaded Mr. Sundaram to see and seek an apology to
Mr. Bose and dissolve the conflict which had occurred between them, on this Mr. Sundaram
agreed to do so but later it was informed to Mr. Vachani by Mr. Sundaram that Mr. Bose had
already reported the matter to the personal manager and now the matter would be decided
otherwise.

Ques.1- Was Mr. Vachani's suggestions to Mr. Sundaram to talk out the matter with
Mr. Bose correct in the circumstances?

Ans.- No, Mr. Vachani’s suggestion to Mr. Sundaram to talk out the matter with Mr. Bose
was not correct at all in the circumstances because the version of both the stories varied and
Mr. Vachani himself didn’t knew the which version was the correct one. Mr. Vachani is the
Quality controller and his work is to check that the manufacturing units are producing
satisfactory products and not to resolve conflicts.

Conflicts are disruptive for a workplace, so quickly resolving them is the key to a positive,
healthy environment. Conflict resolution is the process of finding a solution to that conflict
and is one of the main functions of Human Resource Management.

Once the problem is identified, you need to listen to what both sides have to say about the
problem. What has made everyone so upset? What are their opinions? Listening will enable
you to learn why the conflicted situation is a problem, how it started, and how each side
would like it resolved. Mr. Vachani lacked all these skills and because of that he gave a
wrong suggestion to Mr. Sundaram.

Ques.2- Should he not have told Mr. Sundaram that his interpretation of the incident
varied from that of Mr. Bose?

Ans.- Mr. Vachani was right about not telling Mr. Sundaram that his interpretation of the
incident varied from that of Mr. Bose because Mr. Sundaram didn’t know that Mr. Vichani
was already aware about the conflict between him and Mr. Bose. Rather than telling Mr.
Sundaram about the variance in their stories Mr. Vachani should have told Mr. Bose that the
intention of Mr. Sundaram was not to disrespect him and that he was provoked when Mr.
Bose shouted at him.

He should have told him that he was only busy in work and on top of that he is not
accountable and answerable to Mr. Bose as he is not the head of his department. He should
have then called Mr. Sundaram and Mr. Bose to his office and should have get the
misunderstandings sorted out by providing each with uninterrupted time to give their (fact-
based) side of the story. Once both of them have had this opportunity, ask each of them to
offer ideas on how the situation could be resolved and how both parties could move forward.
Ques.3- Was Mr. Bose justified in reporting the incident to the Personnel Manager soon after
he had apprised Mr. Vachani of the same?

Ans. - No, Mr. Bose was wrong in the very first incidence to report the matter to the Personal
Manager soon after he had apprised Mr. Vachani of the same. He should have waited for the
result as was promised by Mr. Vachani, this action of Mr. Bose was quite immature and
while working in an organisation a person has to have patience and should not be
spontaneous or intolerant towards his/her fellow mates. Also, this action of Mr. Bose, was a
disrespectful gesture against Mr. Vachani as Mr. Bose did not show his trust towards the
former.

HR professionals and conflict management experts recommend that HR get involved in

workplace conflicts when:

 Employees are threatening to quit over the problem. Recruiting and training are
expensive; it’s often cheaper to work out a solution.

 Conflicts are affecting morale and organizational success.

And in this case there was no such problem and Mr. Bose should have waited for Mr.
Vachani to resolve his conflict with Mr. Sundaram.

Ques.4- What action, if any, should the Personnel Manager take in this regard?

Ans. – In this situation the Personnel Manager should try and establish a common goal for
both parties. In this step of the process, both sides agree on the desired outcome of the
conflict. “When people know that they’re working towards the same goal, then they’re more
apt to participate truthfully to make sure that they reach that end goal together.” To
accomplish this, discuss what each party would like to see happen and find a commonality in
both sides as a starting point for a shared outcome. That commonality can be as simple as
“both sides want to end the conflict.”

Ques.5- If Mr. Bose is found to be guilty of implicating Mr. Sundaram without any
substantial reason, what remedy do you think the Personnel Manager should suggest
avoiding recurrence of such incidents in future?

Ans. – The Personnel Manager should give Mr. Bose a Camera Check. This involves giving
feedback about people’s behaviors – instead of about their mental state. For example if you
are thinking you’re thinking about an employee, “he has a bad attitude,” but you know if you
say that, it won’t help, and will probably make the situation worse. A comment like that is
almost guaranteed to make the person feel defensive….you’ve basically just implied he or
she has a character flaw! Also, you’re giving the person absolutely no indication of what you
want him/her to do differently: what would having a “good attitude” look like?

Instead, do a “camera check”: take a mental videotape of the person doing what you call
“having a bad attitude.” What do you see on the imagined tape? You might see him or her
showing up late for work, saying negative things about other people or about the company,
consistently refusing to help colleagues when they ask for support. Those are things you can
tell the person: “John, I notice you’ve come late to work several times over the past month,
and I’ve overheard you saying some pretty negative things about Susan and Jeff to other
employees.” It’s still not easy to hear – but it’s a LOT easier to hear than “you have a bad
attitude” – and it’s much clearer what you want the employee to do differently. It’s worth
getting reasonably comfortable and skilful at giving your employees corrective feedback.
Otherwise, they’re flying blind. When you let people know what they need to do differently
in order to improve and be more likely to succeed, you’re helping them, yourself, and the
organization.