1

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOUR
TOPIC
CONFLICT STIMULATION AND CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. S.C. Roy Sir Gaurav Kumar Singh

BBA.LLB. (Hons)

Ist Semester

ROLL NO.:1621
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although prepared by me, is a
culmination of efforts of a lot of people. Firstly, I would like to thank our Professor of HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT and ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR, Dr. S.C. Roy Sir for his valuable suggestions
towards the making of this project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who were a lot of help for the
completion of this project. The contributions made by my classmates and friends are, definitely, worth
mentioning.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help also. I would also like to thank the
persons interviewed by me without whose support this project would not have been completed.

Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the Almighty for obvious reasons.

THANK YOU ALL

 3

INTRODUCTION

Organisational conflict is a situation of closed or win-lose competition in which parties try to keep each
other from attaining the class of goals. Management of conflict means trying to find ways to balance
conflict and cooperation. There are three views about the management of conflicts in organizations.

According to the first view, called the traditional view, all conflict are dysfunctional and should
therefore be avoided by the manager. This however, is not correct. The manager who uses this
approach always runs the risk of reducing the creativity of his organization. A conflict is functional if
it:-

i. Improves the quality of decisions by acting as an antidote to ‘group thinking’.

ii. Stimulates creativity and innovation by challenges the status quo.
iii. Encourages interest and curiosity among group members.
iv. Fosters an environment of self evaluation and change.

There are at least two independent groups, the groups perceive some incompatibility between
themselves, and the groups interact with each other in some way. Two example definitions are,
process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by
another party" and the interactive process manifested in compatibility, disagreement, or dissonance
within or between social entities´.There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when:

 A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her needs or interests.
 A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is incompatible with another
person's implementation of his or her preferences.
 A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply, such that the wants of all
parties involved may not be satisfied fully.
 4

 A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in directing his or
her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by
the other(s).
 Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their joint actions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The researcher aims to know:-

i. What is Conflict Management.

ii. What is Conflict Stimulation.
iii. How a conflict management useful to managers.
iv. To know about the techniques of conflict management.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher uses a secondary source of research. The following secondary sources of data have been used in
the project-1. Books

2. Articles and journals

3. Database

4. Thesis

5. Websites

SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The researcher uses library of Chanakya National Law University and the research is purely doctrinal.
 5

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

IMPORTANCE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

TECHNIQUES OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES

STIMULATION OF CONFLICT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS

CASE STUDY AND ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION and SUGGESTION

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle conflicts sensibly, fairly, and
efficiently. Since conflicts in a business are a natural part of the workplace, it is important that there are people
who understand conflicts and know how to resolve them. This is important in today's market more than ever.
Everyone is striving to show how valuable they are to the company they work for and at times, this can lead to
disputes with other members of the team.
 6

IMPORTANCE OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

A conflict arises when individuals have varied interests, opinions and thought processes and are just not willing
to compromise with each other. It is always wise to adjust to some extent and try to find a solution to the
problem rather than cribbing and fighting. Conflicts and disagreements only lead to negativity and things never
reach a conclusion. It only adds on to the tensions and makes life hell. It actually leaves you drained and spoils
your reputation. Every individual should try his level best to avoid conflict at the first place rather than
resolving it later. Precautions must be taken at the right time to avoid a conflict.

Imagine yourself constantly fighting with your fellow worker. Would you ever feel going to office?

The issues resulting in a conflict must be controlled at the right time to prevent the eruption of a big fight.
Conflict management plays an important role everywhere, at work places and even in our personal lives.
Fighting never makes anyone happy and actually makes one’s life miserable.

No organization runs for charity, it has to make money to survive well. Employees must give their hundred
percent at work to ensure the maximum productivity. Nothing productive will ever come out if the employees
are constantly engaged in fighting and criticizing others. Conflict management plays a very important role at
workplaces to prevent conflicts and for the employees to concentrate on their work. The team leaders must
ensure that the roles and responsibilities of each and every employee are clearly passed on to them. Employees
should be demotivated to interfere in each other’s work. Employees waste half of their time and energy in

fighting with others and find it very difficult to work which they are actually supposed to do. An individual
must enjoy his work; otherwise he would never be able to give his best.

Conflict management goes a long way in strengthening the bond among the employees and half of the
problems automatically disappear. Individuals must feel motivated at work and find every single day exciting
and challenging. Before implementing any idea, it must be discussed with everyone and no one should ever feel
ignored or left out. This way, every employee feels indispensable for the office and he strives hard to live up to
the expectations of his fellow workers and in a way contributing to the organization in his best possible way.
Conflict management avoids conflicts to a great extent and thus also reduces the stress and tensions of the
employees. No one likes to carry his tensions back home and if you fight with your colleagues and other people,
you are bound to feel uncomfortable and restless even at home.
 7

Conflict management also plays an important role in our personal lives. Tussles and fights spoil
relationships and only increase our list of enemies. Everyone needs friends who will stand by us when we need
them. Conflict must be avoided at homes as it spoils the ambience and spreads negativity. Individuals tend to
disrespect others as a result of conflicts. Conflict management prevents fall out between family members,
friends, relatives and makes life peaceful and stress free. Blame game never helps anyone, instead it makes life
miserable. No idea can ever be implemented if the individuals fight among themselves.

Conflict management helps to find a middle way, an alternative to any problem and successful
implementation of the idea. Problems must be addressed at the right time to prevent conflict and its adverse
effects at a later stage. Through conflict management skills, an individual explores all the possible reasons to
worry which might later lead to a big problem and tries to resolve it as soon as possible.

Conflict Management is very important because it is always wise to prevent a fight at the first place
rather than facing its negative consequencies. Stress disappears, people feel motivated, happy and the world
definitely becomes a much better place to stay as a result of conflict management.

TECHNIQUES OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Conflict Management Techniques

Conflict situations are an important aspect of the workplace. A conflict is a situation when the interests,
needs, goals or values of involved parties interfere with one another. A conflict is a common phenomenon in
the workplace. Different stakeholders may have different priorities; conflicts may involve team members,
departments, projects, organization and client, boss and subordinate, organization needs vs. personal needs.
Often, a conflict is a result of perception. Is conflict a bad thing? Not necessarily. Often, a conflict presents
opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it is important to understand (and apply) various conflict
resolution techniques.

Forcing
 8

Also known as competing. An individual firmly pursues his or her own concerns despite the resistance of the
other person. This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm
resistance to another person’s actions.

Examples of when forcing may be appropriate

 In certain situations when all other, less forceful methods, don’t work or are ineffective
 When you need to stand up for your own rights, resist aggression and pressure
 When a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to
stop an aggression)
 As a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict

Possible advantages of forcing:

 May provide a quick resolution to a conflict

 Increases self-esteem and draws respect when firm resistance or actions were a response to an
aggression or hostility

Some caveats of forcing:

 May negatively affect your relationship with the opponent in the long run
 May cause the opponent to react in the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful
originally
 Cannot take advantage of the strong sides of the other side’s position
 Taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals

Win-Win (Collaborating)

Also known as problem confronting or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the
other person to find a win-win solution to the problem in hand - the one that most satisfies the concerns of
both parties. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually
beneficial result. It includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative
which meets each party's concerns.
 9

Examples of when collaborating may be appropriate:

 When consensus and commitment of other parties is important

 In a collaborative environment
 When it is required to address the interests of multiple stakeholders
 When a high level of trust is present
 When a long-term relationship is important
 When you need to work through hard feelings, animosity, etc
 When you don't want to have full responsibility

Possible advantages of collaborating:

 Leads to solving the actual problem

 Leads to a win-win outcome
 Reinforces mutual trust and respect
 Builds a foundation for effective collaboration in the future
 Shared responsibility of the outcome
 You earn the reputation of a good negotiator
 For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful (however, the process of
finding and establishing a win-win solution may be very involed – see the caveats below)

Some caveats of collaborating:

 Requires a commitment from all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution
 May require more effort and more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be
evident
 For the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution
or fast response is required
 Once one or more parties lose their trust in an opponent, the relationship falls back to other methods
of conflict resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue collaborative efforts to maintain a
collaborative relationship

Compromising
 10

Compromising looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.

Examples of when compromise may be appropriate:

 When the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involving
approaches, such as forcing or collaborating
 To reach temporary settlement on complex issues
 To reach expedient solutions on important issues
 As a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or haven’t yet developed a high
level of mutual trust
 When collaboration or forcing do not work

Possible advantages of compromise:

 Faster issue resolution. Compromising may be more practical when time is a factor
 Can provide a temporary solution while still looking for a win-win solution
 Lowers the levels of tension and stress resulting from the conflict

Some caveats of using compromise:

 May result in a situation when both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation)
 Does not contribute to building trust in the long run
 May require close monitoring and control to ensure the agreements are met

Withdrawing

Also known as avoiding. This is when a person does not pursue her/his own concerns or those of the
opponent. He/she does not address the conflict, sidesteps, postpones or simply withdraws.

Examples of when withdrawing may be appropriate:

 When the issue is trivial and not worth the effort

 When more important issues are pressing, and you don't have time to deal with it
 11

 In situations where postponing the response is beneficial to you, for example -

 When it is not the right time or place to confront the issue
 When you need time to think and collect information before you act (e.g. if you are
unprepared or taken by surprise)
When you see no chance of getting your concerns met or you would have to put forth unreasonable efforts
When you would have to deal with ostility
When you are unable to handle the conflict (e.g. if you are too emotionally involved or others can handle it
better)

Possible advantages of withdrawing:

 When the opponent is forcing / attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your
response until you are in a more favourable circumstance for you to push back
 Withdrawing is a low stress approach when the conflict is short
 Gives the ability/time to focus on more important or more urgent issues instead
 Gives you time to better prepare and collect information before you act

Some caveats of withdrawing:

 May lead to weakening or losing your position; not acting may be interpreted as an agreement. Using
withdrawing strategies without negatively affecting your own position requires certain skill and
experience
 When multiple parties are involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party
that expects your action

Smoothing

Also known as accommodating. Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first of all, rather
than one's own concerns.

Examples of when smoothing may be appropriate:

 When it is important to provide a temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a
 12

better position to respond/push back

 When the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person
 When you accept that you are wrong
 When you have no choice or when continued competition would be detrimental

Possible advantages of smoothing:

 In some cases smoothing will help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less
important ones
 Gives an opportunity to reassess the situation from a different angle

Some caveats of smoothing:

 There is a risk to be abused, i.e. the opponent may constantly try to take advantage of your tendency
toward smoothing/accommodating. Therefore it is important to keep the right balance and this
requires some skill.
 May negatively affect your confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent
 It makes it more difficult to transition to a win-win solution in the future
 Some of your supporters may not like your smoothing response and be turned off

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES

Conflicts happen. How an employee responds and resolves conflict will limit or enable that employee's success.
Here are five conflict styles that a manager will follow according to Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H.
Kilmann:

An accommodating manager is one who cooperates to a high degree. This may be at the manager's own
expense and actually work against that manager's own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes. This approach is
effective when the other person is the expert or has a better solution.

Avoiding an issue is one way a manager might attempt to resolve conflict. This type of conflict style does not
help the other staff members reach their goals and does not help the manager who is avoiding the issue and
 13

cannot assertively pursue his or her own goals. However, this works well when the issue is trivial or when the
manager has no chance of winning.

Collaborating managers become partners or pair up with each other to achieve both of their goals in this style.
This is how managers break free of the win-lose paradigm and seek the win-win. This can be effective for
complex scenarios where managers need to find a novel solution.

Competing: This is the win-lose approach. A manager is acting in a very assertive way to achieve his or her
own goals without seeking to cooperate with other employees, and it may be at the expense of those other
employees. This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence.

Compromising: This is the lose-lose scenario where neither person or manager really achieves what they want.
This requires a moderate level of assertiveness and cooperation. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you
need a temporary solution or where both sides have equally important goals.

STIMULATION OF CONFLICT

Conflict improves group and organizational effectiveness. The stimulation of conflict initiates the search for
new means and goals and provides the stimulus for innovation. The successful solution of a conflict leads to
greater effectiveness, to more trust and openness, to greater attraction of members for each other, and to
depersonalization of future conflicts. In this write up we are discussing how the stimulating conflict can provide
benefits to the organization.

Conflict is a means by which to bring about radical change. It’s an effective device by which management can
drastically change the existing power structure, current interaction patterns, and entrenched attitudes

Conflict facilitates group cohesiveness. Whereas conflict increases hostility between groups, external threats
tend to cause a group to pull together as a unit. Inter group conflicts raise the extent to which members identify
with their own group and increase feelings of solidarity.

Conflict brings about a slightly higher, more constructive level of tension. When the level of tension is very
low, the parties are not sufficiently motivated to do something about a conflict.
 14

Groups or organizations devoid of conflict are likely to suffer from apathy, stagnation, groupthink, and other
debilitating diseases. In fact, more organizations probably fail because they have too little conflict, not because

they have too much. Take a look at a list of large organizations that have failed or suffered serious financial
setbacks over the past decade or two. The common thread through these companies is that they are stagnated.
Their management became complacent and unable or unwilling to facilitate change. These organizations could
have benefited from functional conflict. It may be true that conflict is an inherent part of any group or
organization. It may not be possible to eliminate it completely. However, just because conflicts exist there is no
reason to deify them. All conflicts are dysfunctional, and it is one of management’s major responsibilities to
keep conflict intensity as low as humanity possible. A few points will support this case.

The negatives consequences from conflict can be devastating. The list of negatives associated with conflict is
awesome. The most obvious are increased turnover, decreased employee satisfaction, inefficiencies between
work units, sabotage, labour grievances and strikes, and physical aggression.

Effective managers build teamwork. A good manager has a coordinated team. Conflict works against such an
objective. A successful work group is like a successful sports team; each member knows his or her role and
supports his or her teammates. When a team works well, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts
Management creates teamwork by minimizing internal conflicts and facilitating internal.

Any manager who aspires to move up in such an environment (of conflict) would be wise to follow the
traditional view and eliminate any outwards sign of conflict. Failure to follow this advice might result in the
premature departure of the manager.

Managers who accept and stimulate conflict don’t survive in the organizations. The whole argument of the
value of conflict may be moot as long as the majority of senior executives in organizations view conflict from
the traditional view. In the traditional view any conflict will be seen as bad. Since the evaluation of a manager’s
performance is made by higher-level executives, managers who do not succeed in eliminating conflict are likely
to be appraised negatively. This, in turn, will reduce opportunities for advancement.
 15

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Conflict management plays a very important role in preventing conflicts among individuals. How does a
conflict arise? When individuals strongly oppose each other’s opinions and ideas, the probability of a conflict
arises. A conflict starts when individuals think on different lines and find it very difficult to accept each other’s
ideas. Conflict must be avoided as it destroys the peace, lowers the productivity as well as demotivates the
individuals. All the factors leading to a fight must be explored and efforts must be made to prevent a conflict. A
conflict is not very easy to control; an individual needs certain skills for the same.

1. Effective communication Skills

Effective communication skills are of utmost importance to prevent conflicts. While interacting with
others, you have to take special care of your speech and the way you speak. Never ever shout on anyone,
even if you do not agree with him. Always speak in a polite but convincing manner. Greet others with a
warm smile. It works. Be very specific and precise in your speech. Do not use complicated words and
confuse others. Keep a control on your tongue and do not use words which might hurt the sentiments of
others. Avoid using abusive languages.

2. Listening Skills

An individual must not give his expert comments unless and until he is very clear what the other person
wants. Always be a good listener. Don’t just jump to conclusions and assume things on your own.
Always listen to the other side of the story as well.

3. Discussion

Don’t just follow the rumor mills blindly, do discuss with others as well. Differences can crop up
anytime but fighting would provide no solution. It is always better to sit and discuss the issues on an
open forum. All the participants must give their inputs and efforts must be made to find out an
alternative. Invite all the members involved and never ignore anyone as it would never solve the
problem. Everyone has a right to express his views and a middle way has to be found.
 16

4. Patience

One needs to be very patient to avoid conflicts. There would be people at your workplace and even
home who would try to provoke you to fight. Never ever get influenced. Always follow your instincts

and support what is right. Be very sensible and patient. Learn to keep a control on your emotions. Do not
ever lose your temper as it would only make the situation worse.

5. Impartial

An individual has to be impartial to avoid conflicts. Do not always support your friend. Stand by what is
correct and never support what is wrong. Any individual, even if he is your friend must be corrected if
you feel he is wrong. Listen to everyone and never ignore anyone just because you don’t know him.

6. Never Criticize

Make the other person understand if he is wrong. Don’t criticize him as it would definitely hurt his
sentiments. The other person might not be as intelligent as you are, but you have no right to make fun of
him. Others will look up to you if you guide the other person well and make him realize his mistakes.

7. Positive Attitude

Positive attitude is essential to avoid fights and conflicts. In offices, never ever play the Blame game. No
one is perfect and if you have done anything wrong, have the courage to accept it. Human Beings are
bound to make mistakes but never try to put the blame on anyone else’s shoulders. Avoid backbiting as
it only spoils the relationships. If you don’t agree with anyone’s views, discuss with him on his face, he
will like it. Don’t always find faults in others and be a little more adjusting as life is all about
adjustments.

8. Ignore others

Individuals must try to adopt the middle path approach which considers the interests of one and all.
Don’t unnecessarily waste your energy for a person who is too adamant and is not willing to
compromise at all. Ignore the person who is too demanding as it would solve half of your problems.
 17

CASE STUDY and ANALYSIS

Case study: Dr Agadir

The letter from the plant pathology department was very strong. It concluded by observing:

"If this is the attitude of the biochemistry department, we shall have no research in collaboration with them as of
now. Not only do they lack a healthy attitude towards collaborative work, they have often refused to share
achievements. Now they want to stifle our work on cocoa swollen shoot virus, notwithstanding the fact that we
have been working on it for over a decade. We would of course continue our work in this area, but without the
biochemistry department."

Dr (Mrs) Swanson, Executive Director, Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS), put down the letter and was
quite annoyed. She had known that there was trouble between the biochemistry and plant pathology
departments, or rather between two senior scientists of these departments. She had not expected it to reach this
level. There had been several instances of conflicts between the scientists and their divisions, but the conflicts
had never reached boiling point. They were usually resolved amicably, even before the executive director took
note of them. Mostly the conflicts arose over allocation of plots for experiments, budgetary allocations and
participation in international conferences.

Scientists designed their experiments in consultation with the statistician. They would then apply for a plot of
land, providing a drawing of the area for laying out the experiment. The request would be considered by the
plots committee, consisting of the heads of the research divisions and head of the plantation division. Each
division had a certain land area allocated to it, and it could use that land for its experiments as agreed upon
within the division. The plots committee simply took note of that. Difficulties arose when the land belonging to
some other division was sought, and in particular when the other division did not want to release its land. In the
recent past there were some problems with the plant breeding department over a large piece of land on which a
cocoa plantation had stood from the very beginning of the institute. The plantation had to be destroyed because
of a large-scale disease infestation which was impossible to cure. When the land was cleared, almost all other
 18

divisions put in a request for parts of the land for their experiments. The plant breeding department resented
these requests, and there were heated discussions in the plots committee. The issue was somehow resolved
satisfactorily within the plots committee. The plant breeding department retained most of the land, although a
small part was temporarily allocated to other divisions for their experiments.

Objections were often raised by scientists when an area proposed for use in an experiment was considered by
them to be unsuitable. For example, all experiments on virus studies had to be conducted on land at the edge of
the experimental farm so as to isolate them from other experiments, otherwise they might be a source of
infection and spread the virus diseases. In such cases, a scientist had to give up a preferred location. Frequently
the scientists asked for a larger area than was necessary for their experiments. In those cases, the statistician -
who was a permanent invitee to the meetings of the plots committee - was asked to review the experimental
design with the scientists. When the plots committee denied the request for allocation of a particular plot, for
whatever reason, it helped find another plot.

Occasionally a proposed experiment might not be appropriate for a particular purpose, even though the scientist
proposing the experiment might insist on it. Such cases were also resolved through peer intervention within the
division concerned.

Conflicts over allocation of funds were not unusual, with every division trying to get more so that its research
programme could proceed smoothly. Participation in international conferences also led to some conflict among
the competing scientists. Conflicts over sharing of scientific material and equipment were not uncommon. But
all such conflicts were temporary, and had never affected the work culture of the institute.

However, the conflict between the plant pathology and biochemistry departments was different. It was a conflict
between two departments which had always collaborated in the past. It was a conflict between two senior
scientists who had worked together on the same problem over a decade, and had jointly published their work in
respected journals. For some strange reason, friends had become foes. In the process, they had vitiated to some
extent the research environment of the institute (see ANNEX 1).

The third cocoa project

In 1984, the institute was preparing a five-year plan of activities to be included in the third phase of the World
Bank-assisted Savana Cocoa Project. In the context of CRIS, the project aimed to enhance CRIS's capacity to
carry out research on which to base expanded production of cocoa and coffee. The sub-components of the
project were:
 19

· upgrading the Tofa station and central services, and improving basic services at the substations,
· establishing a CRIS off-station-trials unit, and staff development.

Some investments to start new trials were also contemplated. The total proposed cost of the project was a
modest $US 6.5 million. This investment was intended to be catalytic.

Each division had submitted its plan of activities to the research committee. The research programme on virus
purification and detection appeared in the work plans of both the plant pathology and the biochemistry
divisions. That would not have been a problem but for the ensuing discussion. The head of the plant pathology
division had qualified his division's programme by stating that they would work on the cocoa swollen shoot
virus problem 'as and when they found time.' While this was being discussed by the members of the research
committee, several other issues also cropped up. The head of the plant pathology division had to respond to
several queries on the proposed research programme of his division. He had many answers to give, but could
provide only a few clarifications. Yet he had very strongly questioned the proposal of the biochemistry
department to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus problem. He contended that this was an area in which his
department had been working for almost a decade, and, while the biochemistry department was involved in
some small measure, this was not a major activity, neither in the past nor could it be in the future. This was
essentially phytopathological work. On hearing this, the head of the biochemistry department was stunned. He
could not keep quiet, but reacted rather angrily. In the acrimonious debate which then took place, both heads
had lauded the role of their own department while belittling the other department. The other members of the
research committee knew well that the work had been, in fact, a collaborative research activity between Dr
Agadir, a biochemist, and Dr Ouadda, a plant pathologist, under the auspices of their respective departments.
Somehow this relationship had gone sour.

The research committee had subsequently written to the head of the plant pathology department seeking an
explanation from him as to what was meant by the qualification that they would work on the cocoa swollen
shoot virus problem 'as and when they had time.' The research committee never received a reply. In one of the
meetings, the research committee approved research on cocoa swollen shoot virus as a major activity of the
biochemistry department. No decision was taken on the request of the plant pathology department as the
committee was still waiting for a reply to its earlier communication. Meanwhile, the two departments were
exchanging acrimonious letters.
 20

Dr Agadir

(as narrated by Dr Agadir)

Dr Agadir joined CRIS as a Research Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant Research Officer) in 1965. That
was soon after he had obtained his first degree in biochemistry. He was put in what was then the chemistry
division, which comprised both soil science and biochemistry. The biochemistry wing was at that time mainly
engaged in research on cocoa swollen shoot virus, in collaboration with the pathology division. Collaboration
between various research divisions was part of the culture of the institute, as it was always necessary,
particularly so between plant pathology and biochemistry. There had been close collaboration between the
virologists, breeders and biochemists in the study of screening techniques, detection of infection,
symptomatology, etc., for research studies on cocoa swollen shoot virus.

Dr Agadir was asked to work on various aspects of the cocoa swollen shoot virus purification problem. His
work during the period 1965-66 was published in a respected professional journal. In September 1966, Dr
Agadir went to the University of Sheffield to do a doctoral programme. He successfully defended his research
thesis in 1969, was awarded his PhD, and returned to the institute. He was then promoted to research officer. Dr
Asmera, the then director of CRIS, suggested several research problems to Dr Agadir. He selected four
problems:

(i) pesticide residues in cocoa beans,

(ii) cocoa bio-products (pectin and cocoa husk),

(iii) cocoa swollen shoot virus purification, and

(iv) nutrition of mealy bugs.

The last problem was in fact suggested by a Swedish biologist who was interested in rearing mealy bugs
artificially and feeding them on a liquid diet. He was keen to know the most desired composition of the diet.
The interest in mealy bugs arose because they are the vectors of cocoa swollen shoot virus.

By 1972, Dr Agadir had published in several scientific journals. His work on mealy bugs and pectin was well
received. These were independent publications. By then, Dr Agadir was working as the main biochemist since
Mr R.H. Wode, who was part of an Overseas Development Administration (ODA) technical team from the
United Kingdom, had left for Rustberg at about the time Dr Agadir returned from Sheffield in 1969.
 21

Dr Agadir recalls that his collaborative work with Dr Ouadda began in 1969 when the latter suggested a
research project on factors which affected virus multiplication and symptom development in cocoa. This
problem was originally suggested to Dr Ouadda by the chief of the ODA team. Since this involved research in
biochemistry, both Dr Ouadda and Dr Agadir teamed up. Together they published some research papers.

Dr Ouadda left for the University of Dublin to do a PhD. From 1971 to 1974, while Dr Ouadda was away, Dr
Agadir continued to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus purification. The plant pathology department was
providing infected material, such as cocoa beans and leaves, but no pathologist was involved directly in the
research work.

Dr Agadir faced several impediments in his work. He felt that the head of the ODA technical team, himself a
plant pathologist, did not want him to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus. The ODA team had been working on
cocoa swollen shoot virus for many years without making much progress. In contrast, Dr Agadir was already
claiming remarkable progress. The ODA team brought back Dr C.H. Cantor to continue work on cocoa swollen
shoot virus. Dr Cantor came as a plant pathologist and not as a biochemist.

Dr Agadir recalls various impediments that were put in the way of his work during this period. He was no
longer easily receiving supplies of infected material from the plant pathology department. One morning he
found his experimental boxes thrown out of the greenhouse. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Dr Agadir
continued his work with the help of a technician in the biochemistry department. He even published two papers
in the Savana Journal of Agricultural Sciences. Dr Agadir had sent the draft of these papers to Dr Ouadda, who
was still in Dublin doing his PhD. Dr Ouadda was a junior author of both these papers. The paper on pectin had
another co-author, from the University of Savana at Zaka.

Dr Ouadda returned to CRIS in 1974 after gaining his PhD. At about that time, in 1974, Dr Agadir went to
Munich, together with the then director and head of the plant breeding division, to attend an international
conference on Cocoa Fermentation and Quality. One of the conference papers was presented by Dr Barling, on
using the electron microscope to study fermentation. Dr Agadir wondered if the same technique could be used
for studying virus multiplication in cocoa beans. Dr Barling suggested that the best person to answer this
question would be Dr Lizzermann, an electron microscopist at Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und
Forstwirtshaft (BBA), at Braunschweig, Germany. In fact, they travelled together to Braunschweig. Dr Agadir
was disappointed to learn from Dr Lizzermann that cocoa swollen shoot virus was difficult to study as it did not
attain a high concentration in cocoa beans and therefore detecting it with the electron microscope would be
difficult.
 22

Although Dr Agadir returned to Tofa a bit disappointed, he did not give up. With Dr Ouadda, he wrote a
proposal to develop a sensitive method to detect virus in cocoa tissues. Dr Agadir needed a sensitive method to
continue his work on the biochemical basis of cocoa swollen shoot virus disease resistance, and Dr Ouadda
needed a sensitive method for detection of the virus in the field for his studies on the epidemiology of outbreaks
and their control. Since they had a common interest, they teamed up. Besides, they had already worked together
on this problem. Apart from that, the plant pathology department would be the one to provide infected material
for study. The proposal was sent to the director of BBA.

In the meanwhile, Dr Agadir was travelling. First he went to Malaysia on a Commonwealth Fellowship to visit
cocoa estates and study bulk fermentation of cocoa. In September 1979 he was at the Tropical Crops Research
Institute, London, on a fellowship from the International Atomic Energy Agency to work on pesticide residues
in cocoa beans. In January 1980, Dr Agadir went to Braunschweig at the invitation of Dr Pavlo, Director of the
Institute of Virology in BBA. Dr Agadir convinced Dr Pavlo that he indeed had a good method for purifying the
virus in substantial quantities, which was a necessary prerequisite for developing a sensitive method. By August
1980, Dr Agadir was in BBA on a prestigious fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Stifftung, working
to develop the much-needed sensitive method, later known as the Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Analysis
Technique (ELISA). In August 1980, Dr Ouadda sent the necessary infected material (cocoa beans and leaves)
to Braunschweig for Dr Agadir to continue his work.

Dr Agadir returned to Tofa in November 1981, after having had some initial success in developing the ELISA
technique. Of course, a considerable amount of work remained to be done, but he was elated with the success
already achieved. That was when Dr Ouadda became jealous. He knew that after the virus was detected, using
the sensitive method, it would open the way for genetic engineering and cloning, and all that would ultimately
lead to development of cocoa varieties resistant to cocoa swollen shoot virus. Once the virus was detected it
would be possible to determine the genome structure and then find out what part of viral nucleic acid coded for
the viral protein. Scientists could then transfer that part of the gene into the plant so that the plant could make
the viral proteins and develop resistance to cocoa swollen shoot virus.

On his return from the Humboldt fellowship, Dr Agadir felt the need to have the assistance of a junior scientist.
His proposal was approved and a junior scientist was recruited, who was subsequently trained in molecular
biology, virology and genetic engineering.
 23

Dr Agadir was in charge of a staff seminar series before he left for Germany. Since the series had been started
by Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda jointly, Dr Ouadda took over this responsibility. Dr Agadir had expected to be
invited to give a seminar on his work in Braunschweig, but he was not and this angered him very much.

In the meantime, one Dr Ollenu joined the institute. He had a PhD in plant pathology. Dr Agadir persuaded him
to collaborate with him. But he too backed out after some time, presumably under pressure from his fellow plant
pathologists.

Dr Agadir was flabbergasted. This negative attitude was delaying his work. He could not understand the reason
for this. The roles of the two departments were clearly marked. The plant pathology department had simply to
provide the infected material. Instead, it wanted to monopolize all research on cocoa swollen shoot virus. Even
though the research committee had not approved the research programme in principle, the department was
continuing with it. Instead of using the ELISA technique developed by Dr Agadir, it was using some other
method to isolate cocoa swollen shoot virus. The feud between Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda assumed alarming
proportions. For some time they did not even look at each other. Afterwards they started greeting one another,

although grudgingly. Things became quiet after Dr Ouadda left for Saudi Arabia on sabbatical leave. However,
the two departments continued to exchange acrimonious letters, and collaborative research suffered.

Dr Agadir continued his research on cocoa swollen shoot virus, in collaboration with BBA, where part of the
genetic engineering work had been done.

Dr Agadir had a nagging feeling that Dr Ouadda was not the primary cause of all this trouble, and suspected
that he had been provoked into this by other colleagues, who were jealous of Dr Agadir, since Dr Agadir was
often praised by the director as a good, hard working researcher, at times - to Dr Agadir's embarrassment - in
presence of others.

Dr Swanson's dilemma

Although the feud between Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda had quietened down with the latter's departure to Saudi
Arabia, all was not over. The after-effects were alarming. The two departments continued to exchange hostile
letters. Each was trying to be fully self-sufficient, such that all collaborative research had been virtually
abandoned. Worse, other departments were also moving in that direction and shunning collaborative research.
Earlier, all such conflicts were resolved in the research committee; now they were being directly referred to the
executive director, bypassing the research committee.
 24

Dr Ouadda was expected to rejoin the institute in another month. It was common knowledge that both Dr
Agadir and Dr Ouadda had not buried the hatchet.

Dr Swanson knew that something had definitely to be done to stem the vitiating atmosphere in the institute.

Annex 1: The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana

HISTORY

The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS) was originally established as the Central Cocoa Research
Station of the Department of Agriculture, in 1937, upon the recommendation of the Agricultural Advisor to the
United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Colonies. This followed his observation, during a visit in 1935, of a
marked decline in cocoa yield in the Eastern Province, the cradle of Savana's cocoa industry. Farms which had
been highly productive had become derelict and were gradually being abandoned. Production in the region fell
from 120 000 t/year in 1931-37 to a little over 40 000 t/year in 1953-54.

Continuing decline in cocoa production in the region resulting from widespread incidence of disease
subsequently led to the founding of the Cocoa Institute of Coastal States (CICS) in 1944. The former Central
Cocoa Research Station at Tofa was then selected as the headquarters of CICS, on account of its facilities and
its nearness to the disease-devastated areas. A team of high calibre scientists and administrators, with
considerable experience in tropical agriculture, was recruited. There were entomologists, pathologists, botanists,
chemists, agronomists and a research director.

Initially, rented premises in the town served as temporary laboratory and living quarters for the staff. There was
neither electricity, gas nor running water. However, by 1944, permanent buildings were ready. These comprised
a large, well-fitted laboratory block, an administration block, and smaller ancillary buildings designed as
workshops and storage for equipment. A sub-station was also set up at Badan.

CICS was jointly administered as an international research institute serving three adjoining countries. However,
it was autonomous within the country of its location. On the attainment of independence and national
sovereignty CICS was dissolved in October 1962 as an inter-territorial organization. Each country set up its
own institute for cocoa research. Nonetheless, they maintained links with each other, as well as with institutions
abroad.
 25

The station at Tofa was re-established as CRIS. In the fifty years of its existence, the institute has had a number
of changes in administration. It has passed from local to inter-territorial control, and subsequently to a
succession of national bodies, such as the National Research Council (NRC) in 1962, the Savana Academy of
Sciences (SAS) in 1963, and the National Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (NCSIR) in 1969.

In the first week of October 1973, barely four years after the formation of NCSIR, the administration of CRIS
was changed again and, together with the divisions engaged in the cocoa industry, became a subsidiary of the
Savana Cocoa Marketing Board (SOCOBOD). Then, in October 1975, the Ministry of Cocoa Affairs was
established, with overall responsibility for the entire cocoa industry, including SOCOBOD. When the ministry
was dissolved in 1979, the institute was administered by an interim management committee of SOCOBOD,
with a chief executive and two deputies, to be succeeded, in 1981, by a permanent committee.

The focus of the research activities had been on cocoa until 1979, when the functions were expanded to include
research and investigations into all problems relating to cocoa, cola, coffee, shea nut and other indigenous and
introduced tree species which produce fats similar to cocoa butter. Some of these other crops, such as shea nut
and the tallow tree, grew under different environmental conditions, but the methods used in extracting and
assessing the quality of their fats were not much different from that used on cocoa. Besides, the demand for
shea butter for use on its own and in mixture with hydrogenated palm oil in cosmetics and food preparation was
increasing. Even though other crops were added, the functions of CRIS remained unchanged, and much of its
attention was focused on cocoa.

ORGANIZATION

The institute was headed by a director, who was responsible for day-to-day management of the institute on
behalf of the management committee. The director was assisted by two deputy directors, who were responsible
for the coordination of research work and specific administration. In the organizational structure of the institute
there were scientific divisions as well as service divisions.

Research Division

Initially, the institute was organized in five divisions: plant pathology, botany, entomology, agronomy, and soil
science/chemistry. The botany division was responsible for breeding and physiology. Subsequent expansion of
the work necessitated the establishment of separate plant breeding and physiology/biochemistry divisions. The
current research areas of these divisions is shown in Table 1.
 26

Since the 1930s, considerable research effort had been directed towards control of cocoa swollen shoot virus
disease (CSSV), which was a major limiting factor to cocoa production in Savana1. It was of major importance,
considering that cocoa-related revenue accounted for more than 60% of national foreign exchange earnings.

1. Control of CSSV disease in cocoa in Savana depended mainly on removal of infected and contact trees as
they were discovered. Eradication of CSSV was not possible because of the difficulty of controlling the mealy
bug vector, the severity of the disease in some areas, the presence of latent infection in cocoa and in certain
forest trees, the high cost of control by eradicating diseased trees, and farmers' reluctance to embrace this form
of control, particularly after the government subsidy for removal of diseased cocoa plants was withdrawn. It
appeared that the use of tolerant or resistant cocoa varieties would be the most practical method of controlling
the disease. Once the required resistant material was obtained, control of the disease was practically free of
charge. For many years, the CSSV resistance breeding programme was dominated by laboratory test methods of
various kinds. These helped in selecting many parents relatively less susceptible to CSSV.

The current approach recognized that CSSV resistance breeding was a long-term aim whose final solution lay in
the careful monitoring of growth and yield data of test plants in variety trials under intensive selection pressure.
Therefore a series of field trials were planned, include trials where test plants would be observed for growth and
yield over three years, after which the test plants would be graft-inoculated with CSSV and growth and yield
records continued until the plants would be uneconomic to maintain. The crosses that gave the highest yield
within the economic yield period would be regarded as highly resistant and multiplied in seed gardens for seed
production to growers. Other trials would be planted in areas where CSSV was endemic, and left for natural
infection and spread of the disease in the types. In non-endemic areas, suitable high-yielding types were already
available to growers. The aim was to find cocoa types that were resistant or tolerant to CSSV, combined with
good agronomic characters, such as high yield.

Table 1 Some current research topics of CRIS

Division Research foci

Agronomy Spacing/pruning/herbicide trials in cocoa and coffee.
Intercropping trials in shea nut.
Seed storage of cola.
 27

Entomology Mealy bug studies: biology and control in cocoa.

Mirid studies: biology and control in cocoa.
Capsid control.
Pests, pollinators and other insects of coffee, cola and shea.

Physiology and Biochemistry Pesticide residues in cocoa.

Bulk processing to reduce acidity and off-flavours.
By-products, such as husk and sweating, in cocoa, shea and
tallow.
Virus purification and detection in cocoa.
Clonal propagation of shea, cola and coffee.
Analytical methods for assessing flavour.

Plant Breeding Inter-specific, high yielding, disease-and-pest resistant crosses

in cocoa and coffee.
Pest, disease and drought resistance in cocoa.
Germplasm studies in cocoa, shea, coffee and cola.
Mutation breeding using in vitro culture for cocoa.

Plant Pathology (Mycology, Virology andBlack pod and other fungal diseases of cocoa.
Nematology Sections) Leaf rust and other fungal diseases of coffee.
Necrosis virus of cocoa.

Field and laboratory studies on CSSV in cocoa.

Soil Science Fertilizer requirements in cocoa, coffee, shea and tallow.
Soil nutrient studies.Use of by-products of cocoa.
Shade, cultivar and fertilizer interactions in cocoa.

Although work was organized in a number of divisions, there had always been an interdisciplinary approach
towards fulfilment of the institute's objectives, with close cooperation between different disciplines. It may
 28

therefore be said that the divisional organization was more for administrative control than for research
organization.

The head of each department was normally the researcher with the longest service in the institute. Each
department had a team of scientists, assisted by a number of laboratory assistants and field staff. The total
number depended on the establishment approved by the management committee, and was related to the
approved budget.

The research programme was drawn up collectively by the team of research workers in each department. A
researcher, upon first engagement, was expected to participate in ongoing projects but could, at a later stage,
initiate new work if this fitted into the general objectives of the institute. Research work along any particular
line usually involved three stages. Firstly, laboratory investigations, requiring skilled technical staff and
specialized equipment. Secondly, strictly controlled field experiments followed, putting into test the
observations and deductions made in the laboratory. Thirdly, field trials were done on farmers' land in different
localities and maintained by farmers or at agricultural stations, with the supervision of agricultural field staff.
These were to test the validity of the results in the first two stages, and to observe economic effects and farmers'
reaction.

While the research programme was adhered to fairly closely, latitude was permitted in its execution.
Occasionally, work on projects had to be suspended because of absence of staff, inability to procure the
necessary equipment on time, or inadequate funds.

Facilities

CRIS's main station was at Tofa which was some 120 km north of Zaka, the national capital, in an area well
suited for cocoa production. The station was well provided with offices, a library and laboratory facilities, and
with quarters for all senior staff and most junior staff. The station also provided a number of amenities and
services, which had probably contributed importantly to its capacity to retain staff. These included a domestic
water supply system, a clinic, a primary school, a staff club and even a golf course!

Although many of the buildings were quite old, and maintenance standards had not been kept up, the basic
structures were generally sound. The main requirement was for renovation rather than replacement. Recently, a
programme of renovation and refurbishment of the buildings and rehabilitation of the roads on the research
station had been started, and was expected to be completed soon.
 29

Land available for trials at Tofa included the Old Station (28 ha), and the Square Mile (259 ha), acquired in
1945 to accommodate expansion in CICS's activities. Much of the land was currently occupied by long-term
trials, while some areas were not suitable for cocoa because of soil or drainage problems. Most of the
experimental areas were well maintained by labourers, many of whom had worked on the station for many years
and had acquired the necessary skills.

CRIS operated sub-stations at Suafa, Nobsu and Belo. Suafa (230 ha) was acquired in 1973 to allow trials which
could not be accommodated at Tofa. By 1983, about 40 ha had been developed for cocoa trials, 5 ha for coffee
museum plots and clonal trials, and some 20 ha for trials on cola, tallow and Simaruka glauca (an oilseed tree
introduced from Central America). There was also a cocoa hybrid seed garden and nursery. Over 70% of the
cocoa and coffee trials were destroyed by fire in 1983, and replanting was completed in 1987.

The institute had invested heavily in offices, stores and staff housing at Suafa, and there had been a progressive
increase in the number of staff employed there (about 200 in 1987) and in related costs. The sub-station suffered
because of its distance from Tofa (106 km), which reduced the extent of technical supervision by visiting
research staff. According to Tofa staff, the soils and overall conditions were not very suitable for cocoa, and
much of the coffee work had already been duplicated at the more accessible station at Nobsu, which was only
18 km from Tofa. Trials involving cocoa, coffee and cola were established by the plant breeding, agronomy and
soil science departments, and plant pathology staff were stationed at Nobsu for joint CRIS/CSD trials. Cola,
however, appeared to perform reasonably well at Suafa.

The Nobsu sub-station was situated within the much larger area of the CSD Cocoa Station, which also
accommodated the training school, seed gardens, field trials, sprayer depot and workshop, and areas allocated to
crop introductions.

Soils at Nobsu were variable and there were some rock outcrops, but overall conditions were considered to be
good. Much additional CSD land was available, including substantial areas of secondary forest and old, badly
neglected cocoa in which swollen shoot virus was rife. CRIS owned various buildings at Nobsu, and plans had
already been made for further development there.

The sub-station at Belo was in the savanna area, some 480 km north of Tofa. It had been developed for research
on shea nut, which grew wild in that area. Costs of developing this station had been considerable, as buildings,
 30

boreholes and a generator had been provided, and roads had been built on the station to provide access to the
shea nut areas.

The CSD Cocoa Station at Wadepa, in Eastern Region, was also used as an overflow site, mainly for progeny
trials which could not be accommodated at Tofa. Some buildings had been provided there by CRIS, but the
scale of operations was smaller than that at the sub-stations.

Off-station trials on CSD cocoa stations and on farmers' land were also conducted in collaboration with CSD.
CRIS did not own any facilities at these sites and serious problems had arisen in recent years owing to lack of
adequate trials maintenance and recording by CSD staff, and inadequate supervision by CRIS researchers owing
to lack of transport.

Currently there were 1 692 employees of the institute, of whom 131 were classified as senior staff. Of these, 30
posts were occupied by graduate research scientists, of whom almost half had PhDs, mainly from universities in
the USA or UK. All staff were Savanians and the institute had received no long-term technical assistance since
a large British team was withdrawn in 1978.

The institute had not been generating funds, and therefore was not self-financing. Research findings were made
available without charge, either through the Extension Service Unit or directly to user agencies. The institute
had operated with government subvention under the supervision of a Commodity Board specially set up by the
Government. At present, the cost of operating CRIS was fully borne by SOCOBOD. CRIS's recurrent budget
was D 281 million, equivalent to $US 3.1 million in 1985-86.

This training manual has been prepared as basic reference material to help national research trainers structure
and conduct training courses on research management at the institute level. It is intended primarily for managers
of agricultural research institutes in developing countries and for institutions of higher education interested in
presenting in-service training courses on research management. The manual consists of ten modules, each
addressing major management functions including motivation, leadership, direction, priority setting,
communications and delegation. The four structural functions of management - planning, organization,
monitoring and control, and evaluation - are covered in individual modules. The manual has been designed to
support participatory learning through case-studies, group exercises and presentations by the participants.
 31

CONCLUSION and SUGGESTION

Conflict in project management is not necessarily unfavourable when properly managed. Several advantages
have been identified such as increasing personal growth and morale, enhancing communication, and producing
better project outcomes. However, conflict can be the decline of an organization if it is not effectively managed.
The challenge for organizational leaders and project managers is to try to maintain the right balance and
intensity of conflict in project management. By utilizing project management principles, understanding the
dynamics of conflict, and learning approaches to conflict resolution, managers will be able to establish an
environment in which creativity and innovation is encouraged and project goals are accomplished. Conflicts and
fighting with each other never lead to a conclusion. If one is not on the same line as the other individual, never
fight, instead try level best to sort out their differences. Discussion is always a better and wiser way to adopt
rather than conflicts

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Organizational Behaviour
By-Dipak Kumar Bhattacharyya
2. www.books.google.co.in
3. www.citeman.com
4. Principles of Management
By-PC Tripathi & PN Reddy, MC Graw Hill.
5. Organizational Behaviour-Pearson
32