1) Analyze the identity of each character in this case, using the BRAVE framework (all

elements of the framework may not be applicable, please use the ones which are
relevant to that person)
Characters Analysis of the Character using the brave framework
Use of emotionally meaningful experiences:
-Finding the context/background of a problem came naturally to him and
hence he tried to find the same when he knew that Jeevan’s union was
formed.
Amit Mishra – -He was also a person who believed that HR had an important role to
CHRO of MLL play in negotiations between the union and the management. This
guided his thought process and decisions. Based on his past
experiences, he also believed that negotiations should be focused on
bringing the parties together and that trust was very important in
dealing with important stakeholders.
Use of emotionally meaningful experiences:
-Having worked with the union for a long time, he was very supportive
Pradeep Patwardhan
of the union and led the discussion to come to an agreement between
– Head IR of MLL
the parties. However, he was analytical in his approach and tried to
find a middle ground among the stakeholders. 
Use of emotionally meaningful experiences:
-“Mukesh was a hard task master and a tough negotiator”. Having done
Mukesh Kapoor – multiple negotiations before (assumption, because he is known to be a
Head of Operations at tough negotiator) Mukesh would not take a rash decision. Even though
MLL Pradeep was trying to work a middle ground, Muskesh was firm at his
position and “was giving tough messages”. Mukesh believed in
himself even though the union was skeptical of this decisions.
Use of allegiances:
-Phil is the CEO of the organization and in the case he is seen not to wear
Phil – the HR hat. He wants the best decision for his organization, as the
CEO of MLL outcome of the decision could impact profitability of the organization.
Phil was a very rational person, who took decisions after careful
analysis.
Use of emotionally meaningful experiences:
-He was a local of Chakan, who grew up in abject poverty. Hence, he
was very resourceful and determined to convert every adversity into an
Jeevan Shelke –
opportunity. This reflected in his affinity for the union.
President of the
Use of beliefs:
Shramik Kamgar
-Jeevan wanted to protect his workmen. When the workmen were
Union
pressing him to speeded up the process he was willing to suppress his
own needs and desired for his workmen. (Jeevan also knew his
workmen very well and negotiated for them passionately)
Maheshdada Pawar Use of values:
– Local MLA and -Maheshdada was non committal to either of the parties involved in the
patron of the union negotiation as that is because maybe he did not want to misuse his
power.
 Use of allegiances:
-When Maheshdada invited both the parties to the hotel, and gave a
speech, he showcases his power and was able to somewhat resolve the
conflict.
Use of allegiances:
-Vishwas has 27 years of experience with M&M and was a very reputed
person. (People from across the industry would reach out to him for
advice and assistance) He was loyal to the company and looked out the
Vishwas Kulkarni –
people associated with the organization.
Head of ER at M&M
Use of emotionally meaningful experiences:
-Vishwas’s 27 year of the experience would have also contributed to his
way of dealing with situations and people. His expertise made him
reliable and gaining this advice helped resolve the conflict at hand.

2) Analyze the interests of each person or group. (Interests are nothing but your fears,
needs and desires)
Characters Interest Analysis
-Initially Amit wanted to be in the good books of Vishwas as he had
just joined the organization a year back and was not able to
intereact with Vishwas. He feared that loosing Vishwas’ support
would mean that Amit would not be able to deal with the problem
Amit Mishra –
at hand according to his philosophy.
CHRO of MLL
-Amit was also fearful of the reputation of the company initially, and
how the conflict would affect the same.
-Amit at the end wanted both the parties, the unions, the company
and the client to be happy on the decision that is made.
-In the case Pradeep did not gave an individual identity because he
Pradeep Patwardhan
was always with someone. Hence it is hard to identify his interests
– Head IR of MLL
(fear, needs and desires).
-Being the head of operations, Mukesh was focused on the
productivity of the plant. In the case it is clearly stated what he
was expecting from the “exercise” - a minimum productivity of
Mukesh Kapoor –
15-20%.
Head of Operations at
-Also for Mukesh he had to look at the problem more holistically as
MLL
it is stated in the case that “various joint committees of the union
and management were formed to study and sign off the same
under the leadership of Mukesh”. 
-He was strongly focused on the profits of the organization and did
not want to compromise on the margins.
Phil –
-When Amit was concerned about the reputation of the company, we
CEO of MLL
can see that Phil had clearly told Amit that it was something that
can be dealt with later and that is not his main concern.
Jeevan Shelke – -In the case it is also stated that Jeevan was ready to do “business”
President of the with Amit and Pradeep was because “if he was able to pull off
 these two demands, he would grow in stature in the region and that
someday would help him achieve his political ambitions too”.
Shramik Kamgar
-Jeevan wanted to get the management to agree to the demand of his
Union
union, so that his political ambitions could be met and he would
gain more respect and admiration in the region
Maheshdada Pawar -The local MLA used a combination of emotion and logic to get the
– Local MLA and parties to agree to each others’ demands. He wanted the support
patron of the union and respect of the union members and that of the locals.
-When Vishwas is on a call with Amit, he clearly states his
objectives which are related to the industrial peace to be kept at
Vishwas Kulkarni –
the plant as well as production to continue. Underlying to this
Head of ER at M&M
Vishwas also wanted to maintain a good relationship with the
union.

3) Analyze the role played by Jeevan Shelke. Do you think his approach was
constructive or destructive or both?
Jeevan Shelke, President of the Shramik Kamgar Union is a pivotal character in the case. He is
known as someone who is well-versed with facts and the law, is influential, and also has
political support by way of backing from the local MLA. At the same time, he is neither
negative nor destructive towards managements’ requirements.

By joining his union, the FTC employees have made him their representative, and trust him to
be able to get the management to meet their demands. Apart from the fact that by
accomplishing this Jeevan would meet their expectations, there is more at stake for him
considering that this could provide a major boost to his political ambitions.

At the outset, we see that though Jeevan is known to be a tough negotiator, he is willing to
work towards a ‘win-win’ solution with the management. By standing firm on the point about
permanency, he was able to bring about a change in the stance of the management from being
completely averse to it, to having a phased permanency plan. Till this point, we see that his
approach was constructive since management was working towards the demands of the
workers. But having had this win, Jeevan is prompted to push for permanency at one go.
Further, seeing no sign from the management to actually meet this demand, Jeevan threatens to
pursue legal action. We see that this is where Jeevan actually pushes himself into a corner,
having to deal with increasing unrest from the workers on one hand and a management team
that won’t budge on the other. Though pursuing legal action might have been to their benefit,
his workmen did not want to wait that long to settle the issue. At this point, he has no option
but to take discussions forward to bring them to a close. That he didn’t approach Maheshdada
Pawar himself could indicate that he wanted to accomplish on his own, but doing so could
probably have tilted the balance in their favor. So from a constructive approach, Jeevan’s
actions became destructive to the point where things had come to a standstill. With the
involvement of Maheshdada, Jeevan naturally had to become cooperative and work with the
management to reach a settlement.
8) Explain the role of HR in a long-term settlement scenario between union and
management.
From the given case and Amit’s realization, we come to know that it is not an activity to be
dealt with an avoidance lens. Quoting Amit directly, “the unions will do their job, as HR you
do your job” brings focus to the point that avoiding a long term settlement basically means that
HR is not being able to address the problems effectively.

Amit’s philosophy as stated in the case highlights the role of HR, that of a “third umpire”. HR
would be reached out to for “advice and guidance” from both the unions and management side,
hence neutrality is very important for HR in negotiations. According to Amit, the “negotiations
were not a process of cutting deals” instead he looked at the process where the mutual goals of
both, the unions and the management, could be achieved. This basically means that HR is a
bridge that connects both the union and the management, and works towards the best interest of
both the parties. HR can become that bridge when it gains trust from both sides, but this is
usually harder because HR tends to “shun” the unions, but Amit says that they need to be
engaged in the conversation.
10) Individual reflections: Name three things you as a professional would like to invest
in about yourself, to become a good conflict management professional. You may like to
elaborate with examples.

Name (Roll No.) Reflection

1. Staying patient – I am good at listening to others, but my weakness
is being patient to others for a long period of time. I usually want
conflicts to be resolved very fast, and if it is not resolved then I let
go of it. Usually when I let go of it, the snowball effect comes into
play and hits me hard in the future. I want to build my patience and
have a more future focused perspective.
2. Fear of confrontation / having a conversation – I am scared of the
outcomes of the conversation most of the time and therefore have
Harshita Nandigam an avoidance nature to conflict. I need to change my outlook in
(02) conflict and the become more confident. My fear also stems from
not knowing how to navigate a conflict or how to confront the
other party.
3. Keeping my emotions in check – In times when I become
emotional, my emotions hijack my thinking and that usually gets
me into trouble. I am not able to think with a clear mind which
clouds my judgment. I tend to loose sight of my goal and feel like
only proving my point. I think if I can find a way to stay calm and
be patient, that would help me work on this point.

1. Developing more ‘weak-ties’: This can be very useful in gaining

information that a few strong ties along may not be able to give
you. During a negotiation, knowing what is happening in the
opposite camp could be helpful in deciding what course of action
is to be taken going ahead. Even in the case, we see that MLL had
a sense of what was happening at Jeevan’s end, and could decide
how to proceed.
2. Dealing with the emotional toll of conflicts: Conflicts can be
Meghna Sathesh emotionally taxing, and there have been situations in the past
(33) where such emotions have been quite overpowering. Learning how
to navigate through this would be beneficial for me as a conflict
management professional, and as a person.
3. Developing the patience and ability to understand people’s
motivations, and where they are coming from. Doing this could
help me in dealing with the conflict in a collaborative manner,
rather than letting it escalate. While it is necessary to push for
something to get done, doing so without trying to understand the
other person’s stance towards it will only lead to further pushback.
Pranoy Chakraborty
(45)
Sanya Godiyal
(52)
Shreyas Negi
(58)
 1. Active listening – I would like to master the art of active listening,
which involves listening to understand and comprehend what the
opposite party is saying and not to react instantly. This would clear
any misunderstanding I have with regard to the person or the
discussion.
2. Maintaining calmness – To resolve conflicts effectively, it is
Sneha L. Pai necessary to remain calm and level-headed in order to think
(64) rationally and use different perspectives to analyze the reason for
conflict and come up with the appropriate approach. This is
something I would want to improve on.
3. Focus on the situation at hand – Rather than bringing up past
conflicts, it is essential to focus on the current situation and not
take things personally. This would help me in resolving conflicts
sooner.