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
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 reputation 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 exception, 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

respect and concern for others. Collegiality

is at the core of its administration. All the
members of the academic community enjoy
substantial autonomy; they are also encouraged 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 faceto-face meetings rather than hierarchical
intervention.
Nalanda is headed by a director. The current incumbent is Dr B. Ghosh. He was appointed to this office only recently. Prior to
his selection for this office by a search committee, he headed a small business school. As
director, he concentrates on overall governance, 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

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 teachers and researchers, several members of the
full-time faculty also share lesser administrative responsibilities as chairpersons of various 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

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

Faced with his first crisis since his appointment 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 reviewed once again a series of pungent letters
exchanged between Dr Khan and Mr Jacob.
He was worried that the controversy between the two was getting out of control, and
needed to be checked promptlybefore it
spilled over to muddy the campus harmonious 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

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

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

Case Study: The Letter War
301

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 candidates under his overall supervision. To support their research work, he was allocated
an annual contingency budget; if a candidate required financial help to meet researchrelated 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 controller, Mr Jacob, Rs. 555 less than the contingency 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 marked 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 disbursing authorities, and no organization
can function efficiently if such confusion exists.
The rules state: For payment of contingency 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 appeal, if desired, against the CDCs decision
may be made to the director.

When I as the CDC sanction Rs. 20,000

as contingency grant to a doctoral candidate, you as the financial controller have
only two choices:
1. Either pay the sanctioned amount; or
2. Appeal to the director (appellate authority) against the CDCs sanction.
I would think that the disbursing authoritys 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 discharged its role correctly or not (which, if
needed, is the responsibility of the appellate 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 Affairs, played several games regularly with
students, was working towards a doctoral
degree in finance, was involved only marginally in teaching programmes, and was regarded by few as somewhat opinionated)
found the tone of Dr Khans memo highly aggressive 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 functions therein, my views on academic and
managerial functions at Nalanda are:
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309

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

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 administration.
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 reimbursement. I explained to him that his case
involved some special issues and, therefore, 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 sanctioning authority. However, the bills submitted by him amounted to Rs. 19,445
only. This amount has been reimbursed.
Should I have paid the erroneously sanctioned amount of Rs. 20,000 or the value
of the bills?
Well, now you draw your conclusions.

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 clarifications from the financial controller or
the director on administrative matters
before taking them to any other forum.
Know for sure that the financial controller needs to consult the directornot
committee chairpersonson such matters. 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 composed 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 arguing 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 protocol, faculty members are appointed by the
director and report to him. They are not

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

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

Case Study: The Letter War
303

subordinates of the financial controller.

Therefore, the signature of a faculty member cannot be overruled by him in any matter whatsoever, whether it is an expense
bill submitted or any approval granted
(some minimum protocol has to be followed despite our being proud of our informal culture).
As per the duly approved rules (which
I discussed with you in person before you
approved them): For payment of contingency grant and conference travel reimbursement, the thesis adviser will be the
recommending authority, and the CDC
will be the sanctioning authority. Any
appeal, if desired, against the CDCs decision 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 expense can be more sensibly decided by the
dean or CDCrather than by the financial 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 contingency grants or conference travel reimbursement.
P. Khan
Dr Ghosh, who was still busy familiarizing
himself with more important aspects of his

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 automatically 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 humiliating 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 example, in Case 1, computer hardware was
disallowed by the financial controller, despite some similar expenses being allowed
in the past. Where rules are ambiguous,
precedent takes the force of a rule, according to common law; but it is better to spell
out clearly what the eligible items are.
Keeping in mind what prevails elsewhere, I propose that we elaborate our
existing rules to read as follows:
1. Each student is entitled to a contingency 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

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

304
Jittu Singh

journals, magazines, newspapers,

etc.), travel and accommodation
(air, train, taxi, hotel, food, other incidental expenses, etc.), computer and
accessories (software, hardware, peripherals, supplies, etc.), and all other
study related expenses (photocopying, phone calls pertaining to research
work, etc.) are reimbursed under the
contingency grant. Every single expense item of Rs. 500 or more should
be supported by a receipt.
2. The Trust provides support for attending 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, domestic and foreign conferences together) 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 announce that Dr Khan and Mr Jacob had
arrived for their scheduled meeting with

him. The moment he had feared was now

upon him.
Questions for Discussion

1. Who (or what) do you hold accountable for triggering the conflict described in the case?
2. What led to an escalation of the conflict?
3. What differences do you see between
the roles of sanctioning and disbursing authorities? Should they be
combined into one officeor remain
separate?
4. From the communication point of
view, how effective were the e-mails exchanged 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 differently 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 dispute, 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.

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

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

Case Study: The Letter War
305

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: Organizations are made up of professionals
with different specializations. For
administrative ease, they are segregated into functional departments.
It is expected that people in each department, by doing their work as
efficiently as possible, contribute to
the overall effectiveness of the organization.
In reality, however, the specialist
members of any functional department tend to develop a narrow functional mind-setat the expense of a
broader, macro-organizational perspective. As a result, instead of synchronizing their efforts with what
colleagues in other sister-departments
are doing, they pursue their functional goals single-mindedly. In
effect, then, they begin to pull in different directions.
(Dr Khan and Mr Jacob are both convinced
that they are acting in the best interest
of Nalanda. While the former is preoccupied 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 synergy that could be derived from it).
b. Turf Wars: Perhaps the most dangerous outcome of the narrow silo

mindset is the tendency to claim exclusive rights over departmental

roles, responsibilities and resources.
There is extreme reluctance to share
these with members of other departments within the same organization.
As a result, when work that lies on
the border between two departments arises, instead of interdepartmental 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 supporting vouchers for the full amount. The
latter, however, feels he is fully within
his rights to refuse payment beyond expenditure 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 satisfactory solutions. Instead, they hide
Global Business Review, 9:2 (2008): 299309

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

306
Jittu Singh

behind their official titles or status;

any communication that occurs is
impersonal, indirect and formal.
(Nalanda is located on a compact campus
and prides itself on its family-like
culture. Yet, Dr Khan and Mr Jacob find
it extremely difficult to meet and resolve
their differences directly. Each is convinced that he is the only one safeguarding the institutions interests. They do
not relate as colleagues).
d. Bureaucracy: Bureaucratic procedures
which were initially designed to facilitate work often become sacrosanct
in organizationseven at the expense
of quick, informal resolution of
issues. Officials somehow forget that
by sticking rigidly to such procedures, they are hinderingrather than
helpingwork from being carried
out efficiently.
(Both the protagonists in the case are
quibbling about their status, who has the
final sanctioning power, and procedures
to be followed. They have lost sight of the
substantive issue: how to treat expenditure for which there are no supporting
documents? This cannot be resolved by
referring to the delegation of powers. It
requires consultation between the two).
2. The pitfalls in communication:
a. The objective of communication is
to exchange ideas and arrive at a
common understanding. However,
notwithstanding the great volume
of communication activities in organizations, misunderstandings

are very common. We appear to

communicatebut yet there are substantial communication gaps which
serve as breeding grounds for conflicts.
b. Officials in organizations tend to rely
more on official, impersonal memos
and e-mailsrather than direct, faceto-face personal communication. As
a result, communication gaps get
compounded.
c. There is a reluctance to listen to, and
appreciate, the viewpoints of others.
As a result, people communicate past
(rather than with) one another.
d. People seem to be preoccupied with
somehow stubbornly hanging on to
their own views and refuting what
their counterparts have to say.
(One would expect communication
between professionals in an educational
institution such as Nalanda to be open,
frank and civilized. Differences of opinions, if any, ought to be resolved through
cooperative dialogue. Yet we find here
that the two protagonists:
i) refuse to engage in face-to-face
dialogue;
ii) prefer to exchange terse e-mails laced
with sarcasm and mutual disrespect.
There is no attempt to seek understanding and agreement;
iii) are marking copies of their correspondence to everyone in the Nalanda
community and making their dispute publicperhaps in an attempt
to seek political support.
What are the likely consequences of such
miscommunication and behaviour?)

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

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

Case Study: The Letter War
307

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 respect 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 understanding; instead, their tone is distinctly
accusative; they are more like missiles 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 another. They have unique personalities, 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 cooperatively with, their teammates. Such

interpersonal skills are an essential

requirement of life in organizations.
d. The hallmark of effective professionals is the high quality of their
interpersonal skills.
e. Among the key interpersonal skills
that are required for effective teamwork are:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)

Respect for colleagues

Open communication
Effective listening
Supportive behaviour
Tolerance for differing viewpoints
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, members 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 ambiguity about roles. Both Dr Khan and
Mr Jacob claim that the role of sanctioning 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

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

308
Jittu Singh

impact of their behaviour on the academic community of Nalanda? Are

they acting as role models of professional conduct?
6 Conflict resolution:
a. Conflicts are natural and inevitable
in organizations.
b. In fact, they are a sign of life. One
should be more worried if there are
no conflicts at all.
c. However, conflicts should be settled
before they degenerate into vicious
personality clashes, physical fights,
or anti-organizational behaviour.
d. There are two broad strategies of
conflict resolution:
i) Dialogue between the conflicting
parties themselves
ii) Mediation by a neutral third party.
e. It is generally agreed that the first
strategy is better. The conflicting parties must be persuaded to discuss
their differences and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.
f. However, when the conflicting parties fail to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution, and their conflict begins
to assume destructive proportions,
then it becomes necessary for a third
party to intervene.
g. Is the situation in Nalanda ripe for
the director to mediate and impose a
decision?
h. If yes, then what should that decision be?
i. What would be the acceptability /
consequences of an imposed decision?
j. Are there alternative ways of resolving this dispute?

There is no ideal or universally applicable way of conflict resolution.

However, the case could be used to
highlight a few alternatives:
Ignore: After all, Khan and Jacob
are seasoned professionals. They
are entitled to an occasional tiff
and surely are capable of coming
to an agreed settlement in due
course. Dr Ghosh could hope for
time to heal the conflict.
This is a deceptively simple solution.
Without timely intervention, some
conflicts may spin out of control. The
differences between Khan and Jacob
have already become quite ugly
and somewhat of a talking point on
Nalandas peaceful campus. Rather
than being healed with time, the
conflict threatens to become worse.
Can Dr Ghosh really afford to ignore
the conflict anymore?
Hierarchical intervention: The
director could use his authority
to chide Khan and Jacob for
their unbecoming conductand
impose a ceasefire between them
in the hope that their tempers
would cool off gradually.
This may appear to be a quick, easy
solutionbut may have side-effects.
If tempers do not really cool off, but
keep simmering quietly, then the
ceasefire may not hold for long. A
flare-up may recur unless the
underlying dispute is settled.
Mediation: The director could
invite Khan and Jacob for a faceto-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

necessary, he could intervene to
prod them towards a mutually
acceptable solution.
Mediation is a logical intervention.
However, it too has attendant risks.
First, the mediated solution may not
be truly acceptable to one or both
parties. Second, the party that feels
it has lost more in the bargain is
likely to have second thoughts after
a while. Third, there is a good chance
that the mediator may also be viewed
as an adversary by the party that appears to be on the losing side of the
mediated solution.
Dr Ghosh may be better advised not
to mediate until other courses have
been explored first. Mediation is a
solution of last resort.
Facilitation: Without getting
directly involved in the dispute,
the director could simply arrange
to bring Khan and Jacob together
for a discussion between themselves. They would be left to settle their dispute in their own way.
Since conflicts generally arise out of
misunderstandings, direct face-toface communication between the
conflicting parties may be the best
way to clear outstanding issues.
Ideally, the conflicting parties should
themselves take the initiative to reestablish direct communication between
one another with a view to arriving
at a mutually acceptable outcome.
However, if their false pride gets in
the way of doing so, then Dr Ghosh

could bring the two together. But

thereafter, he would make it clear to
them that they have to find their own
solution.
Role clarification: If the conflict
between Khan and Jacob is traced
to confusion over sanctioning
and disbursing authority over
contingency grants for doctoral
students, then one logical solution is to spell out more clearly
who has the final authority.
This solution is certainly recommended to avoid future conflicts.
But it may not be of immediate benefit in the ongoing dispute between
Khan and Jacob.
In the final analysis, there is nothing better than responsible professionals stepping back from a
conflict situation (rather than
getting sucked into the everescalating spiral of tit for tat)
and realizing the folly of their
behaviour. If Khan and Jacob are
indeed motivated by the desire
to serve Nalanda better, they must
learn to support one another.
Fighting about who is right, or
who has more power, is counterproductive. In order to work together in a cooperative manner,
they need to keep their lines of
communication open. If there are
occasional differences, they
should discuss them directly
and search jointly for a mutually
acceptable solution. This is what
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