Case Study: The Letter War

Jittu Singh

This caselet is a description of differences between two individuals in an academic institute. The problem(s) it
addresses have a bearing on relations between academic and administrative people, organization culture, systems
and processes and traditional and modern e-mail communications. The case situation is not to be used as an
illustration of correct or incorrect way of addressing the issues. It can be used for teaching purpose.

Introduction respect and concern for others. Collegiality

Established in 1945, Nalanda is a renowned
institute for graduate and postgraduate
courses in several professional disciplines.
Located on a compact, picturesque campus,
it has steadily built up an international repu-
tation for the high quality of its educational
programmes.
Nalanda is a fully residential institute. All
its full-time students (around 500) and its
faculty (averaging 50) live on the campus in
residences meant for them. Without excep-
tion, they take special pride in the institutes
unique campus culture. Its distinguishing
features are strong camaraderie, close and
informal relationships between faculty and
students, and a value system that emphasizes
is at the core of its administration. All the
members of the academic community enjoy
substantial autonomy; they are also encour-
aged to participate actively in the day-to-day
running of the institute. Differences that crop
up among them from time to time are
generally ironed out through informal face-
to-face meetings rather than hierarchical
intervention.
Nalanda is headed by a director. The cur-
rent incumbent is Dr B. Ghosh. He was ap-
pointed to this office only recently. Prior to
his selection for this office by a search commit-
tee, he headed a small business school. As
director, he concentrates on overall govern-
ance, external relations, and development
activities. For day to day management, he

This case has been written by Jittu Singh, Professor at XLRI Jamshedpur (Contact: jittusingh@xlri.ac.in.). It is
based on a real incident; however, all identities have been disguised.
GLOBAL BUSINESS REVIEW, 9:2 (2008): 299309
SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/097215090800900209

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016

300
Jittu Singh
is assisted by three senior officials: a dean
for academic affairs, a financial controller, and
an administrator for campus administration
(see Exhibit 1 for an organization chart).
Exhibit 1
Nalandas Organization Chart
Note: Dr Ghosh strongly believes that this
organization chart illustrates the division of roles at
Nalandarather than represent hierarchy in the
traditional sense. He would like relations among his
academicians to be marked by collegialitynot
bureaucracy. He is keen to preserve the culture of
open, informal interactions among colleagues.
Nalanda has a well-qualified faculty: all
the professors hold doctoral degrees from
leading universities; some also have valuable
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
industrial experience. In addition to the 50
full-time members, there is an equal number
of visiting or adjunct professors drawn from
all over the country.
In addition to their primary role as teach-
ers and researchers, several members of the
full-time faculty also share lesser adminis-
trative responsibilities as chairpersons of vari-
ous committees (e.g. Admissions, Student
Affairs, Placement, Graduate Programmes,
and Doctoral Programme). These positions
are rotated among the facultyand are
normally held by a person for two years.
The Scene
Faced with his first crisis since his appoint-
ment as director, Dr Ghosh was visibly on
tenterhooks. After a rushed breakfast, he
walked briskly from his on-campus residence
to the Institutes administrative complex, ran
up the flight of steps leading to his office, and
entered it gasping for breath. He had only
15 minutes left before a scheduled meeting
with Mr V. Jacob (Financial Controller) and
Dr P. Khan (Chairperson of the Doctoral
Committeeor CDC).
As his secretary brought him a cup of
steaming coffee, he settled down and re-
viewed once again a series of pungent letters
exchanged between Dr Khan and Mr Jacob.
He was worried that the controversy be-
tween the two was getting out of control, and
needed to be checked promptlybefore it
spilled over to muddy the campus harmoni-
ous life. But he was still not sure how to handle
the delicate professorial egos involved.
The first salvo in the letter war was fired
by Dr Khan, who was in the second year of

his two-year term as the chairman of the
Doctoral Committee. He had been at Nalanda
for nearly 10 years. Though popular among
students, he had a more tenuous relationship
with his faculty colleagues; they found him
a bit aloof, cold and sometimes abrasive.
There were nearly a dozen doctoral candi-
dates under his overall supervision. To sup-
port their research work, he was allocated
an annual contingency budget; if a candi-
date required financial help to meet research-
related expenses, he was empowered to
sanction money out of this budget.
On Monday, February 12, Dr Khan lost his
cool when one of the doctoral candidates
reported receiving from the financial con-
troller, Mr Jacob, Rs. 555 less than the contin-
gency grant of Rs 20,000 sanctioned to him.
Perceiving it to be a challenge of his authority,
he immediately sat at his computer and sent
the following e-mail to Mr Jacoband mark-
ed copies to several other faculty colleagues:
Dear Mr. Jacob:
I have received complaints from two
doctoral candidates that they have been
paid contingency amounts less than what
was sanctioned by the Chairperson of the
Doctoral Committee (CDC). These reveal
confusion of roles of sanctioning and dis-
bursing authorities, and no organization
can function efficiently if such confu-
sion exists.
The rules state: For payment of contin-
gency grant and reimbursement of travel
expenses to doctoral candidates attending
conferences, the thesis adviser will be the
recommending authority, and the CDC
will be the sanctioning authority. Any ap-
peal, if desired, against the CDCs decision
may be made to the director.
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
Case Study: The Letter War
301
When I as the CDC sanction Rs. 20,000
as contingency grant to a doctoral candi-
date, you as the financial controller have
only two choices:
1. Either pay the sanctioned amount; or
2. Appeal to the director (appellate au-
thority) against the CDCs sanction.
I would think that the disbursing au-
thoritys role is to ensure that the relevant
accounting records like expense vouchers
are in order and not sit in judgment on
whether the sanctioning authority dis-
charged its role correctly or not (which, if
needed, is the responsibility of the ap-
pellate authority).
Kindly arrange to pay immediately
the balance amount to the two doctoral
students.
P. Khan
At the receiving end, Mr Jacob (who had
earlier held responsibility for Student Af-
fairs, played several games regularly with
students, was working towards a doctoral
degree in finance, was involved only margin-
ally in teaching programmes, and was re-
garded by few as somewhat opinionated)
found the tone of Dr Khans memo highly ag-
gressive and offensive. Enraged, he decided
to repay in kind. He shot back the following
reply almost instantly (and marked copies
to all on Dr Khans circulation listplus his
own office staff):
Dear Dr Khan:
I hate to engage in arguments and
counter-arguments. Whatever be your line
of thinking on organization and the func-
tions therein, my views on academic and
managerial functions at Nalanda are:
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
302
Jittu Singh
a) The director is the sole sanctioning
authority.
b) The financial package for doctoral
candidates is approved by the
director.
c) The financial controller consults the
director in case of any deviation
from the original sanctionand
takes appropriate corrective action.
d) Financial matters come under the
domain of the financial controller.
e) Chairpersons of various academic
committees take care of academic
matters and are expected to forward
administrative or financial matters
to the relevant persons in the admin-
istration.
Having expressed my views, I also
would like to present the facts of the cases
you have taken up:
Case 1: The student concerned came to
me with a request for contingency reim-
bursement. I explained to him that his case
involved some special issues and, there-
fore, I would have to consult the director
first. Thereafter, I communicated to him
both the directors decision and the action
taken by me.
If this student wanted any further
clarification, he should have approached
the directorand not the CDC.
Case 2: You had sanctioned Rs. 20,000,
although you dont have any sanction-
ing authority. However, the bills sub-
mitted by him amounted to Rs. 19,445
only. This amount has been reimbursed.
Should I have paid the erroneously sanc-
tioned amount of Rs. 20,000 or the value
of the bills?
Well, now you draw your conclusions.
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
These episodes clearly highlight the truth
that facts of the cases should be checked
with the right person before one sends out
mails. So you are requested to seek clari-
fications from the financial controller or
the director on administrative matters
before taking them to any other forum.
Know for sure that the financial con-
troller needs to consult the directornot
committee chairpersonson such mat-
ters. So kindly take care of the academic
matters and leave the financial matters to
the financial controller and the director.
Last but not least, I would not like to be
drawn into any further debate on this
issue. Regards,
V. Jacob
Viewing the financial controllers response
as both unjustifiable and uncooperative,
Dr Khan decided to approach the director
for a solution. Bristling with anger, he com-
posed the following e-mail to Dr Ghosh (and
marked copies to Mr Jacobalong with four
members of the Doctoral Committee):
Dear Dr Ghosh:
I do not wish to spend any time in ar-
guing with the financial controller on each
and every routine issue that involves a
doctoral student and that seemingly
involves some financial matter. In my
opinion, trying to make a simplistic and
clear demarcation between academic and
financial matters is too nave. For instance,
is a study-related expense an academic or
financial subject?
Coming to the basic question of proto-
col, faculty members are appointed by the
director and report to him. They are not

subordinates of the financial controller.
Therefore, the signature of a faculty mem-
ber cannot be overruled by him in any mat-
ter whatsoever, whether it is an expense
bill submitted or any approval granted
(some minimum protocol has to be fol-
lowed despite our being proud of our in-
formal culture).
As per the duly approved rules (which
I discussed with you in person before you
approved them): For payment of contin-
gency grant and conference travel reim-
bursement, the thesis adviser will be the
recommending authority, and the CDC
will be the sanctioning authority. Any
appeal, if desired, against the CDCs deci-
sion may be made to the director.
The spirit behind this rule was that the
director need not be disturbed for routine
matters and that the CDC can take care of
these on his behalf. For example, whether
a particular expenditure is eligible for
reimbursement as a travel-related ex-
pense can be more sensibly decided by the
dean or CDCrather than by the finan-
cial controller.
Since the financial controller refuses to
accept the rule cited above, and hence the
CDCs sanctioning authority, I request you
to kindly clarify the matter immediately
so that I, and the Doctoral Committee, can
continue to meaningfully process requests
from faculty members for research grant
or requests from doctoral students for con-
tingency grants or conference travel re-
imbursement.
P. Khan
Dr Ghosh, who was still busy familiarizing
himself with more important aspects of his
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
Case Study: The Letter War
303
new office, seemed in no hurry to get sucked
into an unnecessary conflict between two
seemingly petulant individuals. Therefore,
he did not respond to Dr Khan; he hoped,
perhaps, that tempers would cool down auto-
matically after a while. However, after waiting
for two days for a reply from Dr Ghosh, but
not receiving one, Dr Khan sent another mail
on Wednesday to his four colleagues on the
Doctoral Committee:
I have decided not to sign as CDC on any
document that goes to accounts till the
protocol issue is sorted out. I find it humil-
iating to decide that a particular expense
item is a research scholars study related
expense and be overruled by someone
who has done no research in his life saying
that it is not.
But we need to address the basic issue
of removing ambiguity from the list of
items eligible for reimbursement. For ex-
ample, in Case 1, computer hardware was
disallowed by the financial controller, des-
pite some similar expenses being allowed
in the past. Where rules are ambiguous,
precedent takes the force of a rule, accord-
ing to common law; but it is better to spell
out clearly what the eligible items are.
Keeping in mind what prevails else-
where, I propose that we elaborate our
existing rules to read as follows:
1. Each student is entitled to a contin-
gency grant of Rs. 10,000 per year
during the first two years and Rs.
20,000 per year during the third and
fourth years, on a reimbursement
basis to cover study-related expenses.
Purchase of reading materials (books,
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
304
Jittu Singh
journals, magazines, newspapers,
etc.), travel and accommodation
(air, train, taxi, hotel, food, other inci-
dental expenses, etc.), computer and
accessories (software, hardware, per-
ipherals, supplies, etc.), and all other
study related expenses (photocopy-
ing, phone calls pertaining to research
work, etc.) are reimbursed under the
contingency grant. Every single ex-
pense item of Rs. 500 or more should
be supported by a receipt.
2. The Trust provides support for at-
tending conferences in India and
abroad. A student will be reimbursed
all related expenses (travel by air,
train or taxi, hotel, food, all conference
fees, other incidental expenses, etc.)
up to Rs. 100,000 (all-inclusive, do-
mestic and foreign conferences to-
gether) during the entire duration of
the programme. Every single expense
item of Rs. 500 or more should be
supported by a receipt.
Please let me know by Saturday if you
have any objection to this elaboration, or
if you have any other suggestion.
P. Khan
Dr Ghosh finished reading these letters
and pondered over the consequences of this
simmering dispute and how best to diffuse
it. He was aware of the unpleasantness it
had already created among his faculty
colleagues. Nalanda was not used to such a
public spat among its senior functionaries.
Just then his secretary walked in to an-
nounce that Dr Khan and Mr Jacob had
arrived for their scheduled meeting with
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
him. The moment he had feared was now
upon him.
Questions for Discussion
1. Who (or what) do you hold account-
able for triggering the conflict de-
scribed in the case?
2. What led to an escalation of the conflict?
3. What differences do you see between
the roles of sanctioning and dis-
bursing authorities? Should they be
combined into one officeor remain
separate?
4. From the communication point of
view, how effective were the e-mails ex-
changed between Dr Khan and
Mr Jacob?
On a more general note, what are the
advantages/disadvantages of e-mail
vis--vis conventional memos (off-line
and on paper) and face-to-face meetings?
5. What do you think of Dr Khans e-mail
to the director and to his colleagues on
the CDC?
6. What would you have done different-
ly if you were in the shoes of Dr Khan,
Mr Jacob, and Dr Ghosh?
7. As a common mentor to Dr Khan and
Mr Jacob, what advice would you give
to them now?
8. Had Dr Ghosh turned to you for advice
about the best way of handling the dis-
pute, what would you have suggested?
Teaching Notes on The Letter War
This case is a graphic description of life in
organizationsand the numerous disputes
that arise every day.

It can be used to focus on several facets of
management:
1. The impact of organizational structure
on the behaviour of people:
a. Functional (or silo) mindset: Organ-
izations are made up of professionals
with different specializations. For
administrative ease, they are segre-
gated into functional departments.
It is expected that people in each de-
partment, by doing their work as
efficiently as possible, contribute to
the overall effectiveness of the or-
ganization.
In reality, however, the specialist
members of any functional depart-
ment tend to develop a narrow func-
tional mind-setat the expense of a
broader, macro-organizational per-
spective. As a result, instead of syn-
chronizing their efforts with what
colleagues in other sister-departments
are doing, they pursue their func-
tional goals single-mindedly. In
effect, then, they begin to pull in dif-
ferent directions.
(Dr Khan and Mr Jacob are both convinced
that they are acting in the best interest
of Nalanda. While the former is preoccu-
pied with supporting doctoral students,
the latter is focused on financial control.
However, neither of them is able to see the
larger common picture. Their functional
mindset prevents them from appreciating
the need for cooperationand the syn-
ergy that could be derived from it).
b. Turf Wars: Perhaps the most dan-
gerous outcome of the narrow silo
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
Case Study: The Letter War
305
mindset is the tendency to claim ex-
clusive rights over departmental
roles, responsibilities and resources.
There is extreme reluctance to share
these with members of other depart-
ments within the same organization.
As a result, when work that lies on
the border between two depart-
ments arises, instead of inter-
departmental coordination to tackle
it, there is a turf war about whose
area it falls in; no intrusion is
tolerated.
(Both Dr Khan and Mr Jacob claim
exclusive right over disbursement of
money to doctoral students. The former
is of the view that the amount he has
sanctioned to a doctoral student should
be disbursed without any questions
even if the student fails to produce sup-
porting vouchers for the full amount. The
latter, however, feels he is fully within
his rights to refuse payment beyond ex-
penditure supported by vouchers. Thus,
it appears as if the two are engaged in a
turf war about who has the final say in
this matter; each accuses the other of
intruding into his domain).
c. Officious behaviour: Some people, on
stepping into their official roles,
develop airs about being important
functionaries. They begin to behave
in an exceedingly formal, officious
mannerinsisting on elaborate
protocols. They avoid spontaneous
or more informal interactions. Thus,
when problems arise, they are
reluctant to talk directly with their
counterparts to seek mutually satis-
factory solutions. Instead, they hide
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
306
Jittu Singh

behind their official titles or status; are very common. We appear to

any communication that occurs is communicatebut yet there are sub-
impersonal, indirect and formal. stantial communication gaps which
(Nalanda is located on a compact campus serve as breeding grounds for conflicts.
and prides itself on its family-like b. Officials in organizations tend to rely
culture. Yet, Dr Khan and Mr Jacob find more on official, impersonal memos
it extremely difficult to meet and resolve and e-mailsrather than direct, face-
their differences directly. Each is con- to-face personal communication. As
vinced that he is the only one safeguard- a result, communication gaps get
ing the institutions interests. They do compounded.
not relate as colleagues). c. There is a reluctance to listen to, and
d. Bureaucracy: Bureaucratic procedures appreciate, the viewpoints of others.
which were initially designed to faci- As a result, people communicate past
litate work often become sacrosanct (rather than with) one another.
in organizationseven at the expense d. People seem to be preoccupied with
of quick, informal resolution of somehow stubbornly hanging on to
issues. Officials somehow forget that their own views and refuting what
by sticking rigidly to such proced- their counterparts have to say.
ures, they are hinderingrather than (One would expect communication
helpingwork from being carried between professionals in an educational
out efficiently. institution such as Nalanda to be open,
(Both the protagonists in the case are frank and civilized. Differences of opin-
quibbling about their status, who has the ions, if any, ought to be resolved through
final sanctioning power, and procedures cooperative dialogue. Yet we find here
to be followed. They have lost sight of the that the two protagonists:
substantive issue: how to treat expend- i) refuse to engage in face-to-face
iture for which there are no supporting dialogue;
documents? This cannot be resolved by ii) prefer to exchange terse e-mails laced
referring to the delegation of powers. It with sarcasm and mutual disrespect.
requires consultation between the two). There is no attempt to seek under-
2. The pitfalls in communication: standing and agreement;
iii) are marking copies of their corres-
a. The objective of communication is pondence to everyone in the Nalanda
to exchange ideas and arrive at a community and making their dis-
common understanding. However, pute publicperhaps in an attempt
notwithstanding the great volume to seek political support.
of communication activities in or- What are the likely consequences of such
ganizations, misunderstandings miscommunication and behaviour?)

Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016

3. The art of letter writing:
a. In case one chooses to communicate
with colleagues in writing, one must
ensure that memos or e-mails follow
certain acceptable principles. The
minimum requirements are:
i) The writer must show due re-
spect to the addressee
ii) The general tone of the message
should be civilized
iii) The objective should be to inform,
or to seek clarification or help
rather than to accuse.
b. The letters exchanged in this case do
not appear to be written with a view
to arriving at a common understand-
ing; instead, their tone is distinctly
accusative; they are more like mis-
siles fired at adversaries.
c. If Mr Jacob and Dr Khan prefer to
communicate through letters, are
there alternative (and less offensive)
drafts they can consider?
4. Interpersonal skills:
a. People are different from one an-
other. They have unique personal-
ities, value systems, needs, abilities,
aspirations, likes and dislikes, etc.
b. Thus, there is plenty of diversity in
any group or organization.
c. Notwithstanding their diversity,
members of any team must work
together to fulfill their common team
goals. They should possess the ability
to relate well, and work coopera-
tively with, their teammates. Such
Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
Case Study: The Letter War
307
interpersonal skills are an essential
requirement of life in organizations.
d. The hallmark of effective profes-
sionals is the high quality of their
interpersonal skills.
e. Among the key interpersonal skills
that are required for effective team-
work are:
i)
Respect for colleagues
ii)
Open communication
iii)
Effective listening
iv)
Supportive behaviour
v)
Tolerance for differing viewpoints
vi)
Ability to resolve disputes
amicably.
f. To what extent are these displayed
by Mr Jacob and Dr Khan?
5. Role clarification:
a. In any organization or team, mem-
bers are assigned specific roles.
b. Each member is expected to play his
role to the best of his ability.
c. To prevent confusion, roles must be
defined carefully so that there are
neither unattended nor overlapping
responsibilities.
d. Many conflicts, such as the one in
Nalanda, have their roots in ambi-
guity about roles. Both Dr Khan and
Mr Jacob claim that the role of sanc-
tioning money has been assigned to
them. Thus, there is an overlap.
e. Could the dispute have been avoided
through clearer definition of their
roles and powers?
f. Are the two aware of their role as
educators? Are they aware of the
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309
308
Jittu Singh

impact of their behaviour on the aca- There is no ideal or universally ap-

demic community of Nalanda? Are plicable way of conflict resolution.
they acting as role models of profes- However, the case could be used to
sional conduct? highlight a few alternatives:
6 Conflict resolution: Ignore: After all, Khan and Jacob
are seasoned professionals. They
a. Conflicts are natural and inevitable
in organizations. are entitled to an occasional tiff
b. In fact, they are a sign of life. One and surely are capable of coming
should be more worried if there are to an agreed settlement in due
no conflicts at all. course. Dr Ghosh could hope for
c. However, conflicts should be settled time to heal the conflict.
before they degenerate into vicious This is a deceptively simple solution.
personality clashes, physical fights, Without timely intervention, some
or anti-organizational behaviour. conflicts may spin out of control. The
d. There are two broad strategies of differences between Khan and Jacob
conflict resolution: have already become quite ugly
and somewhat of a talking point on
i) Dialogue between the conflicting
Nalandas peaceful campus. Rather
parties themselves
than being healed with time, the
ii) Mediation by a neutral third party.
e. It is generally agreed that the first conflict threatens to become worse.
strategy is better. The conflicting par- Can Dr Ghosh really afford to ignore
ties must be persuaded to discuss the conflict anymore?
their differences and arrive at a mu- Hierarchical intervention: The
tually acceptable solution. director could use his authority
f. However, when the conflicting par- to chide Khan and Jacob for
ties fail to arrive at a mutually accept- their unbecoming conductand
able solution, and their conflict begins impose a ceasefire between them
to assume destructive proportions, in the hope that their tempers
then it becomes necessary for a third would cool off gradually.
party to intervene. This may appear to be a quick, easy
g. Is the situation in Nalanda ripe for solutionbut may have side-effects.
the director to mediate and impose a If tempers do not really cool off, but
decision? keep simmering quietly, then the
h. If yes, then what should that de- ceasefire may not hold for long. A
cision be? flare-up may recur unless the
i. What would be the acceptability / underlying dispute is settled.
consequences of an imposed decision? Mediation: The director could
j. Are there alternative ways of re- invite Khan and Jacob for a face-
solving this dispute? to-face meeting to resolve their

Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016
 Case Study: The Letter War
309

differences in his presence. If could bring the two together. But

necessary, he could intervene to thereafter, he would make it clear to
prod them towards a mutually them that they have to find their own
acceptable solution. solution.
Mediation is a logical intervention. Role clarification: If the conflict
However, it too has attendant risks. between Khan and Jacob is traced
First, the mediated solution may not to confusion over sanctioning
be truly acceptable to one or both and disbursing authority over
parties. Second, the party that feels contingency grants for doctoral
it has lost more in the bargain is students, then one logical solu-
likely to have second thoughts after tion is to spell out more clearly
a while. Third, there is a good chance who has the final authority.
that the mediator may also be viewed This solution is certainly recom-
as an adversary by the party that ap- mended to avoid future conflicts.
pears to be on the losing side of the But it may not be of immediate bene-
mediated solution. fit in the ongoing dispute between
Dr Ghosh may be better advised not Khan and Jacob.
to mediate until other courses have In the final analysis, there is noth-
been explored first. Mediation is a ing better than responsible pro-
solution of last resort. fessionals stepping back from a
Facilitation: Without getting conflict situation (rather than
directly involved in the dispute, getting sucked into the ever-
the director could simply arrange escalating spiral of tit for tat)
to bring Khan and Jacob together and realizing the folly of their
for a discussion between them- behaviour. If Khan and Jacob are
selves. They would be left to set- indeed motivated by the desire
tle their dispute in their own way. to serve Nalanda better, they must
Since conflicts generally arise out of learn to support one another.
misunderstandings, direct face-to- Fighting about who is right, or
face communication between the who has more power, is counter-
conflicting parties may be the best productive. In order to work to-
way to clear outstanding issues. gether in a cooperative manner,
Ideally, the conflicting parties should they need to keep their lines of
themselves take the initiative to rees- communication open. If there are
tablish direct communication between occasional differences, they
one another with a view to arriving should discuss them directly
at a mutually acceptable outcome. and search jointly for a mutually
However, if their false pride gets in acceptable solution. This is what
the way of doing so, then Dr Ghosh they did not do in the case.

Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at XLRI on July 26, 2016