Whose Side Are You on, Anyway?

Mr. Kshirsagar has found himself in an exalted position his background cannot sustain. He has not gotten that level of experience to manage Board room politics as to be able to satisfy the Union where his loyalty rests. This is a test case for him and his failure to reach a compromise on the issue will definitely affect his career adversely.

Mr. Kshirsagar should retrospect the issues between Horizon Employees' Union and Board.

1. the relationship between Labour-Management are not genial.

2. the economic performance of the company is not good.

3. There are go-slows and strikes by workmen because of wages and bonus payments.

4. Mr. Kshirsagar is aware of board politics.

Mr. Kshirsagar needs to stick to it, and instead of just passing along the statements of the two parties, he should be more proactive, and look for solutions that may benefit both parties. This lets him prove the value of his position and can lead to a win-win-win for all parties.

For example, the directors are worried about the financial situation, which is affected by slow downs and strikes. Mr. Kshirsagar should ask the directors how much no slow downs and strikes will help the business - what will the financial benefit be? Then he should ask the directors to split that benefit with the workers.

On the other hand, Mr. Kshirsagar should call a meeting of the Union Members and get the justification of the demands and he himself should analyse it to a presentable manner to the Board. If it is injustice, it is his duty to establish the demands as justice. When the union discuss it in its meeting and justice is very little in the demand as per general opinion, they would be careless of the demand and thus Khirsagar can smile at them. The persons who raised the demands would also calm down. Since the matter of injustice is not acceptable to the individual Leader, he need not to bother, as logic would help him to withstand among them. Logic is very important in presentation of demands and settlement of disputes.