Home Uncategorized I need a discussion for wk 5 and 2 responses

Uncategorized

I need a discussion for wk 5 and 2 responses

Productive Conflict

Reflecting on your professional experience as well as what you have been reading from Lencioni, describe a time when there was damaging conflict on a team of which you were a member. This conflict may have been suppressed, not directly addressed, or it may have surfaced in a way that was destructive to team effectiveness.

Applying material from this week, the Internet, and/or Library research, explain how the conflict could have been better managed by the team and team leader. Consider how your conflict management style, as revealed by the TKI Assessment, played a part in this situation.

NOTE: Please complete your TKI Assessment prior to submitting your initial response.

Post your initial response by Wednesday, midnight of your time zone, and reply to at least 2 of your classmates’ initial posts by Sunday, midnight of your time zone.

Professor Herminia Ibarra, Professor Aneeta Rattan and Anna Johnston prepared this case based on public sources and interviews

with Jill Tracie Nichols and Joe W hittinghill.

London Business School cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion and are not intended to serve as endorsements,
sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.
Copyright © 2018 London Business School. All rights reserved. No part of this case study may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without written permission of
London Business School.

Satya Nadella at Microsoft:
Instilling a growth mindset

In early 2018, Satya Nadella celebrated his fourth anniversary as the CEO of Microsoft. Under his
stewardship, Microsoft has gone from a company perceived as a Windows-centric lumbering giant to
a $700 billion market cap tech player whose strategic bets on artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud
computing were paying off (see Exhibit 1). After a decade of flat growth under Nadella’s predecessor,
the company’s share price soared to an all-time high in June 2018.

Nadella remembered February 4, 2014 vividly in his book Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover
Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone. It was the day he took charge of a company
widely portrayed by its own employees as plagued by internal knife fights, bickering and inertia. In his
mind, the company’s ability to make great technology was never lost. However, a culture of internal
competition and “not invented here” mentality had focused employees on a narrow vision of
performance over customers and increasingly expansive market opportunities.

An engineer, Nadella thus set out to change the human system at Microsoft. Four years later, he
prided himself on the company again becoming a magnet for top engineering talent, a world-class
competitor among the heavyweights of the tech industry, and valued partner to companies undergoing
their own digital transformation (see Exhibit 2).

“People often ask how it’s going,” said Nadella. “My response is very eastern: We’re making great
progress, but we should never be done.” 1

The “lost decade”
Just 17 days after founder and technical whizz Bill Gates handed over the reins to Steve Ballmer in
2000, the stock market crashed. In the decade that followed, a culture that crippled innovation
flourished at Microsoft.

Herminia Ibarra
Aneeta Rattan
Anna Johnston

LBS Ref: CS-18-008
HBP: LBS128

June 2018

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Microsoft’s infamous “stack ranking” performance management system pitted employees against each
other every six months. Like a stack of LEGO bricks, employees were essentially slotted into top, good,
average, below average and poor positions. The forced distribution meant that one in 10 people would
always receive a poor rating, regardless how much they contributed. As one product manager
remembered: “If you don’t play the politics, it’s management by character assassination.”

Management practices like the stacking system killed collaboration: developers feared that giving
away their best ideas could damage their position. Employees prioritised what would help them get
the highest ratings over the quality of their work. “I was told in almost every review that the political
game was always important for my career development,” reflected one former Microsoft engineer.
Ultimately, “staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure their colleagues failed.”
(See Exhibit 3.)

A wave of external competition crashed down on the firm, causing talent to jump ship. By 2004, thanks
to the rapid growth of upstart firms such as Google, some of Microsoft’s most talented employees were
leaving faster than they could be replaced. “Instead of a culture that said, ‘Let’s experiment and see
which ideas work,’ the culture is one of, ‘Let’s kiss enough ass so maybe they’ll approve of our product’,”
said one Microsoft executive who eventually quit in 2009 to work for Google 2. A former engineer said
it was like “designing software by committee.”3

Microsoft’s product development process lagged: Bing failed to extinguish Google search, and Zune
couldn’t compete with Apple’s iPod. In 1998, for example, a group of executives passionate about
bringing an e-book to market were waved away by Gates and told to report into an Office-run division.
“Potential market-busting businesses, such as e-book and smart phone technology, were killed or
delayed amid bickering and power plays.”4

Ballmer aggressively opposed open-source innovation, calling Linux a “cancer that attaches itself in
an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.” The industry labelled him “shortsighted”.

Morale plummeted. By 2011, Ballmer’s Glassdoor rating among his own employees was just
29%. Despite climbing to 46% the following year, it still lagged behind others at that time: Google CEO
Larry Page’s approval rating was 94% and Mark Zuckerberg’s was 99%.

After the tech bubble burst and with the stock price flat, “People realised they weren’t going to get
wealthy,” one former senior executive said. “They turned into people trying to move up the ladder,
rather than people trying to make a big contribution to the firm.” Meanwhile, companies like Google
were paying employees up to 23% above the industry average.5

By 2014, the Microsoft that Nadella inherited was fading toward irrelevance, heralded the press. The
tech industry had shifted from desktop computers to smartphones – from Microsoft’s Windows to
Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android. Apple and Google had soared to record market valuations;

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Microsoft’s stock price had stalled, despite the fact that revenue had tripled and profits had doubled
during Ballmer’s reign as CEO from 2000 to 2014.6

As industry analyst Jan Dawson summarised: “It was an enormously profitable company. They were
in no danger of going out of business soon – it was just a question of whether they’d go into permanent
decline.”7

Satya Nadella
The consummate insider, Nadella grew up professionally in the Microsoft that Gates and Ballmer
created. The India-born cricket enthusiast started working at Microsoft in 1992 when products were
saved on disks and the world was powered by Windows 3.0. A computer scientist by training, Nadella
moved through a range of leadership roles, including heading up R&D for Online Services, and
ultimately becoming executive vice president of the Cloud and Enterprise group. He recalled taking
risks along the way:

I distinctly remember Steve saying, ‘Hey, look, you know if you go to Bing and you
don’t do a good job or succeed, it might just be your last job.’ But at the same time,
his own intellectual honesty and how he talked about that job made it, you know, very
enticing. It was tough to refuse to go there to learn. And it’s clear that if I had not gone
and learned… and if I had not run the cloud infrastructure business, I’m sure the
board would have not seen me as a candidate even for CEO.8

Reflecting on important influences in his life, Nadella cites his formative experiences: “It’s the language,
routines and mindset of my parents back in India and my immediate family in Seattle that helped form
me and still guide me today.”9

In particular, he traces the roots of his ideas about leadership to the birth of his first child, Zain, who
was premature, weighed just three pounds, and had cerebral palsy. “Empathy, we learned, was
invisible and was a universal value,” said Nadella. “And we learned that empathy is essential to deal
with problems everywhere, whether at Microsoft or at home; here in the United States or globally. That
is also a mindset, a culture.” 10

Taking charge
As Microsoft’s new CEO on February 4, 2014, Nadella scripted a letter to all employees (see
Exhibit 4):

Today is a very humbling day for me. It reminds me of my very first day at Microsoft,
22 years ago. Like you, I had a choice about where to come to work. I came here

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

because I believed Microsoft was the best company in the world. I saw then how
clearly we empower people to do magical things with our creations and ultimately
make the world a better place. I knew there was no better company to join if I wanted
to make a difference. This is the very same inspiration that continues to drive me
today.

He spoke of focusing the company on its core values, but through a new lens. “We need to prioritise
innovation that is centred on our core value of empowering users and organisations to ‘do more’.”

As Nadella reflected on what needed to shift, he set his sights on what he himself called “a vague and
amorphous term”:

Microsoft’s culture had been rigid. Each employee had to prove to everyone that he
or she was the smartest person in the room. Accountability – delivering on time and
hitting numbers – trumped everything. Meetings were formal. If a senior leader
wanted to tap the energy and creativity of someone lower down in the organisation,
she or he needed to invite that person’s boss, and so on. Hierarchy and pecking order
had taken control, and spontaneity and creativity had suffered.11

“We all knew something was going to be different when he assigned the Leadership Team to read
[Marshall Rosenberg’s] Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Life Changing Tools for
Healthy Relationships,” recalled Phil Spencer, Head of Xbox.12 Microsoft president and chief legal
officer Brad Smith, a 24-year company veteran, agreed this was a clear indication that Nadella was
going to transform “not just the business strategy, but the culture as well.”13

Nadella devoted much of his first year to listening and learning from others:

I heard from hundreds of employees at every level and in every part of the company.
We held focus groups to allow people to share their opinions anonymously as well.
Listening was the most important thing I accomplished each day, because it would
build the foundation of my leadership for years to come. To my first question, why
does Microsoft exist, the message was loud and clear. We exist to build products that
empower others. That is the meaning we’re all looking to infuse into our work. I heard
other things as well. Employees wanted a CEO who would make crucial changes,
but one who also respected the original ideals of Microsoft, which had always been
to change the world. They wanted a clear, tangible and inspiring vision. They wanted
to hear more frequently about progress in transparent and simple ways. Engineers
wanted to lead again, not follow. They wanted to up the coolness. We had technology
the press would fawn over in Silicon Valley, such as leading-edge artificial intelligence,

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

but we weren’t showing it off. What they really demanded was a road map to remove
paralysis.14

Nadella’s to-do list for the first year included preparing Microsoft for a mobile- and cloud-first world,
building “new and surprising partnerships” and working to ensure they could truly empower every
person on the planet as their new mission stated.

In the spring of 2014, despite a contentious historical rivalry with Apple and lack of traction with their
own Windows phones, Microsoft made Office available on all iOS devices, including the iPhone and
iPad. The next year, the global launch of Windows 10 originated in a tiny village in Kenya.

“Articulating our core raison d’etre and business was a good first step. But I also needed to get the
right people on the bus to join me in leading these changes,” Nadella said. He wanted a senior
leadership team (SLT) that would “lean into each other’s problems, promote dialogue, and be effective”.

“I don’t mean yes-men and yes-women,” he explained. “Debate and argument are essential. Improving
upon each other’s ideas is crucial. I wanted people to speak up. ‘Oh, here’s a customer segmentation
study I’ve done’. ‘Here’s a pricing approach that contradicts this idea’. It’s great to have a good, old-
fashioned college debate. But there also has to be high quality agreement.”15

To her surprise, Nadella selected Jill Tracie Nichols, Ballmer’s communications lead 2009–2014, as
his chief of staff in 2014. When she questioned why, Nadella told her: “I’ve seen you work with others
and you treat them well. You show respect. I want my office to be about the culture we are trying to
create and not about power.”16

Peggy Johnson, a seasoned Qualcomm executive, became head of business development. Her job
would be to forge ties with former Silicon Valley rivals, such as Dropbox. “Satya was already on a
regular cadence of visiting the Valley, which was new for the CEO of Microsoft,” said Johnson. “And
he said to me, ‘I want you to be outside of Redmond as much as you are inside of Redmond’.”

Kathleen Hogan, who had experience at McKinsey and Oracle, would transition from leading
Microsoft’s global consulting and support business to partnering with Nadella on leading the cultural
transformation as chief people officer. Kurt DelBene, who “was handpicked by President Obama to fix
Healthcare.org” and once upon a time led the Office division, returned as chief strategy officer. Chris
Capossela headed up marketing and Scott Guthrie, an engineer who had worked with Nadella in
building the cloud business, would lead Cloud and Enterprise, Microsoft’s “fastest growing business”.

“Over time, these changes meant that some executives left,” recalled Nadella. “They were all talented
people, but the senior leadership team needed to become a cohesive team that shared a common
world view… We needed everyone to view SLT as his or her first team, not just another meeting they
attended. We needed to be aligned on mission, strategy and culture.” 17

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

The 2015 annual executive retreat offered another opportunity to convey that things were changing.
“One aspect of the off-site really bugged me,” admitted Nadella. “Here we were with all this talent, all
this bandwidth, and all this IQ in one place just talking at each other in the deep woods. And frankly,
it seems like most of the talking was about poking holes in each other’s ideas. Enough.”

Nadella broke tradition by inviting the founders of companies Microsoft had recently acquired in the
year prior, such as Mojang, the maker of Minecraft. As Nadella said:

These new Microsoft leaders were mission-orientated, innovative, born in the mobile-
first and cloud-first world. I knew we could learn from their fresh, outside perspective.
The only problem was that most of these leaders did not officially “qualify” to go to
executive retreats given the person’s level in the organisation. To make matters
worse, neither did the manager, or even their manager’s manager… Inviting them
was not one of my more popular decisions. But they showed up bright-eyed,
completely ignorant of the history they were breaking. They asked questions. They
shared their own journeys. They pushed us to better.18

Another change “not universally loved” was scheduling customer visits during the retreat. Despite
some “eye-rolling and groaning,” executives from different business lines were shuttled off together to
visit customers. The invigorated executives ended up talking for days about what they had learned
and what that meant for the future of Microsoft. “The transformation was under way,” concluded
Nadella.

From know-it-alls to learn-it-alls
At Microsoft’s July 2015 global sales conference in Orlando, Nadella revealed a fresh company
mission: “To empower every person and every organisation on the planet to achieve more.” The
original mission enshrined by Gates was “a computer on every desk and in every home.”

After covering business plans, including building an intelligent cloud platform, with the spotlight on his
face, Nadella talked about his children and what learning each of their special needs had meant for
him and his wife, Anu. Nearing the end of the speech, he turned to talking about the Microsoft culture:

We can have all the bold ambitions. We can have all the bold goals. We can aspire
to our new mission. But it’s only going to happen if we live our culture, if we teach our
culture. And to me, that model of culture is not a static thing. It is about a dynamic
learning culture. In fact, the phrase we use to describe our emerging culture is ‘growth
mindset’, because it’s about every individual, every one of us having that attitude –
that mindset – of being able to overcome any constraint, stand up to any challenge,
making it possible for us to grow and thereby for the company to grow.19

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

In early 2015, Anu had given him a best-selling book by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck entitled
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. She had found it helpful in thinking about creating
conditions for success for one of their daughters who has learning differences, but suspected it might
also give Nadella some ideas for Microsoft. People who operate with a fixed mindset, the theory says,
are more likely to stick to activities that utilise skills they’ve already mastered, rather than risk
embarrassment by failing at something new. People focused on growth make it their mission to learn
new things, understanding that they won’t succeed at all of them at first.20

This rang true for Nadella, who seized on the ideas to forge a plan for Microsoft. “Dweck divides the
world between learners and non-learners,” explained Nadella, “demonstrating that a fixed mindset will
limit you and a growth mindset can move you forward.”21 Microsoft’s culture change, he concluded,
would centre on “the belief that everyone can grow and develop; potential is nurtured, not
predetermined; and anyone can change their mindset”.22 They would shift from being “know-it-alls” to
“learn-it-alls.”

Nadella told Hogan that the primary things he wanted her to help him on was evolving the culture. At
an offsite with 180 executives divided into 17 teams, they started a dialogue on what kind of culture
they wanted to have. The 17 leaders became Hogan’s “culture cabinet,” charged with defining growth
mindset for Microsoft.23 After much debate, and consultation with experts like Dweck, the group
articulated three pillars, all in the service of making a difference in the world:

Customer obsession. We need to obsess about our customers. At the core of our
business must be the curiosity and desire to meet a customer’s unarticulated and
unmet needs with great technology. This was not abstract: We all get to practice each
day. When we talk to customers, we need to listen. We need to be insatiable in our
desire to learn from the outside and bring that learning into Microsoft.

Diversity and inclusion. We are at our best when we actively seek diversity and
inclusion. If we are going to serve the planet as our mission states, we need to reflect
the planet. The diversity of our workforce must continue to improve, and we need to
include a wide range of opinions and perspectives in our thinking and decision-
making. In every meeting, don’t just listen – make it possible for others to speak so
that everyone’s ideas come through. Inclusiveness will help us become open to
learning about our own biases and changing our behaviours so we can tap into the
collective power of everyone in the company. As a result, our ideas will be better, our
products will be better, and our customers will be better served.

One Microsoft. We are one company, one Microsoft – not a confederation of
fiefdoms. Innovation and competition don’t respect our silos, so we have to learn to
transcend those barriers. 24

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Nadella spoke widely about the importance of mindset. “The CEO sets
the tone for the culture,” explained Nichols. “Gates and Ballmer were super-smart, driven and hard-
charging. Their model was ‘precision questioning:’ picking apart ideas in meetings to test their validity
and the presenter’s conviction, and that approach flowed through the organisation. Satya models being
curious, seeking to learn as people bring him new ideas and information.25

Grounding the pillars
“We made big intentional changes that would grab people’s attention,” said Hogan, “like changing the
performance review system … and small changes like giving people a list of 10 inclusive behaviours
and asking them to pick one and discuss it.”26 “We never believed that there would be one thing that
would change the company. It would be a lot of things, big and small, reinforcing the change,” echoed
Nichols.27

Customer obsession required employees to get up from their chairs and into the field. Dorothee Ritz,
Microsoft’s general manager for Austria in July 2015, encouraged her team to speak with customers
on their turf:

One account manager spent a week out on a street with police officers, trying to
understand when and where remote data could help them. Another account manager
spent two days in a hospital to observe first-hand and understand what it would really
mean to become paperless.28

After a year of experimenting with “immersive experiences”, Ritz selected a set of key customers
(whom she calls partners) across industries ranging from car manufacturing to retailers to hospitals.
Fifteen executives from Microsoft went on-site to talk to their customers about their challenges. 29
“Getting to know each other in the context of solving a partner’s problems was more meaningful than
ropes exercises or off-site discussions,” explained Ritz.30

The commitment to making Microsoft a safe and inclusive place was less about training than the
behaviour modelled by senior managers. For example, when Xbox sponsored a party at the 2016
Game Developer’s Conference, featuring scantily-clad women dancers31, Xbox head Spencer made
a swift apology. “What made it easier for me to hold myself accountable was really believing in the
growth mindset piece of our culture.”32 And, to ensure the numbers reflected the intentions, diversity
targets were set for senior management.33

The infamous stack-ranking performance system was abolished, replaced by “continual feedback and
coaching”34 and a compensation process that put more influence in the hands of managers. Instead
of basing rewards such as bonuses on an algorithm driven by employee ratings, managers are given
a budget for compensation that they can hand out as they see fit.

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Microsoft’s annual Hackathon, OneWeek, is an example of the new “one company” ethos. Employees
are invited to step away from their work and concentrate on a hack: a problem that, when solved, could
benefit people, business, society or the environment. People team up, plot a business plan, create a
prototype and then pitch it company-wide; winning hackathon teams are funded to build their projects.
At first, people wondered if OneWeek was worth the effort. But the potential to reach millions of people
around the world held a strong allure.

On September 26, 2017, Nadella’s book, Hit Refresh was released, and every employee received a
copy with a letter inside (see Exhibit 5). “Writing it was more for employees and to advance culture
than anything else,” said co-author Nichols.35

Nudges and small reminders engage all 125,000 employees with the new culture. For example,
leaders close meetings with a reflection, “Was that a growth-mindset or fixed-mindset meeting? Why?”
Nadella issues monthly videos reviewing his top few learnings, prompting groups across Microsoft to
discuss their own learnings. Visitors to Redmond have been welcomed by elevator doors decorated
with the Chinese symbol for “listen”. Employees in the canteen are reminded to be lifelong learners
when they wipe their face – thanks to the napkin holders.

Role-modelling the change
Eight months into his tenure, Nadella gave the keynote speech at the Grace Hopper Celebration of
Women in Computing, an annual event for women in the tech industry. During the Q&A, Dr Maria
Klawe, a computer scientist and former Microsoft board member, asked Nadella what advice he had
for women seeking a pay raise who are not comfortable asking. He advised patience, and “knowing
and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along.”

Nadella’s comments went viral, provoking outrage. He was mocked publicly as ignorant of well-
documented gender pay gaps, and his stated commitment to diversity was questioned. Instead of
waiting for the furore to settle, Nadella said, “I was determined to use the incident to demonstrate what
a growth mindset looks like under pressure.”36

By email, the CEO told his employees he had “answered that question completely wrong”. Nadella
explored his own biases and asked his executive team to do the same. It made an impression with his
top team, including Hogan, who said: “I became more committed to Satya, not less. He didn’t blame
anybody. He owned it. He came out to the entire company and he said, ‘We’re going to learn, and
we’re going to get a lot smarter’.”37

There were plenty of other opportunities to learn from public mistakes.

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

In March 2016, researchers at Microsoft’s Future Social Experiences (FUSE) Labs unveiled Tay, an
AI-based chatbot. Tay soon became a powerful reminder that “AI can (and often should) behave in
ways human creators might not expect”.38 Twitter trolls discovered that if they “pummelled Tay’s
account with racism, sexism and other hateful rhetoric – a scenario Microsoft had not accounted for –
she would spew some of it back.”39 In just 24 hours, the bot tweeted 96,000 times in an “increasingly
vile fashion”. Microsoft’s public AI experiment “failed by its own standards”.

It was a “humiliation,” the press scorched. Undeterred, Nadella wrote to Tay’s creators, “Keep pushing,
and know that I am with you.” In December 2016, Microsoft launched Zo, a bot similar to Tay, but
designed to be more “troll-resistant.”

Reflecting on what he described as the most difficult lesson he had learned, at the 2016 Game
Developer’s conference Xbox chief Spencer echoed his boss. “When we make mistakes – and we
bump, or collide, into each other – the easy way is to retreat, maybe even to deny there’s a problem.
Instead, I think we have to be humble. I think we have to be active learners – read, educate ourselves,
try to understand other people’s journeys, and read some more. And then, better informed, I think we
commit to leading with deliberate purpose.”40

Four years on
Today, Microsoft is once again a magnet for top engineering talent, rated as one of five best AI
companies for employees 41, and Nadella has a Glassdoor employee approval rating of 95%.

“Our industry doesn’t respect tradition,” said Nadella, “it respects innovation.” His first four years have
seen a number of bold tech decisions; for example, investments in quantum computing and mixed
reality, and innovations such as HoloLens, a holographic computer that enables people to interact with
holograms.

Today, over 95% of Fortune 500 companies choose Azure, Microsoft’s cloud computing service. Azure
has announced 50 regions globally, with 40 generally available today – more than any other major
cloud vendor. The company has embraced Linux, the open-source Windows rival “rather than clinging
to Windows like a security blanket.” Nadella’s $26 billion deal for LinkedIn, which combines LinkedIn’s
500 million professional users with the 85 million people who use Office 365, “gives Microsoft a
formidable data hoard for its AI operations.”42

“After years of intensive focus,” Nadella said of the culture change, “we began to see some
encouraging results.”

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Employees told us they felt the company was heading in the right direction. They felt
we were making the right choices for long-term success and they saw different
groups across the company working together more…

But we also saw some trends that were not as encouraging. When asked whether
their vice president, or group leader, was prioritising talent movement and
development, the results were worse than they’d been before our culture-building
project began. Even the most optimistic workers will become discouraged if they are
not being developed. I had set a clear mission and envisioned an empowering culture.
Employees and senior leaders were on board, but we had a missing link-middle
management. 43

Expecting 125,000 people to take a learning-oriented approach to their work is a significant task. Not
everyone gets it right away. “It’s a lot like love, grace, or forgiveness,” said Nichols. “Words don’t
describe it until you experience it.”

At a meeting of 150 Microsoft executives that Nadella convened to discuss developing high potentials,
he shared a story. One of his managers had told him that five of his team members didn’t have a
growth mindset. “The guy was just using growth mindset to find a new way to complain about others,”
Nadella told the group. He declared the whining over. “To be a leader in this company, your job is to
find the rose petals in a field of shit.”44

“Cultural transformation is hard and demanding work,” agreed Spencer. “Four years into it, it’s still
sometimes incredibly slow and incredibly painful to get everyone on board, much less to admit our
own biases.”45

The future
In September 2017, at Microsoft Ignite, an annual conference for developers and IT professionals,
Nadella closed with an ambition:

The core soul of our company is to empower every person and every organisation on
the planet to achieve more. That means we want to democratise the access to
technology.

I was reminded of a poem I’ve read by Vijay Seshadri, the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet
from 2014, called Imaginary Number. The last line goes: ‘The soul, like the square
root of minus 1, is an impossibility that has its uses.’ It definitely does.

We all seek to unlock the unimaginable and solve the impossible. That’s the quest
we are on.46

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Evolution of Microsoft’s share price

Source: Macrotrends

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Exhibit 2: Top players by market share and revenue growth in cloud computing, Q2 2017

Source: Synergy Research Group

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Exhibit 3: Organisation-chart cartoon courtesy of Manu Cornet

Source: http://bonkersworld.net/

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

http://bonkersworld.net/

LBS128

Exhibit 4: Satya Nadella’s first letter to employees as Microsoft CEO

From: Satya Nadella

To: All Employees

Date: Feb. 4, 2014

Subject: RE: Satya Nadella – Microsoft’s New CEO

Today is a very humbling day for me. It reminds me of my very first day at Microsoft, 22 years ago.
Like you, I had a choice about where to come to work. I came here because I believed Microsoft was
the best company in the world. I saw then how clearly we empower people to do magical things with
our creations and ultimately make the world a better place. I knew there was no better company to join
if I wanted to make a difference. This is the very same inspiration that continues to drive me today.

It is an incredible honor for me to lead and serve this great company of ours. Steve and Bill have taken
it from an idea to one of the greatest and most universally admired companies in the world. I’ve been
fortunate to work closely with both Bill and Steve in my different roles at Microsoft, and as I step in as
CEO, I’ve asked Bill to devote additional time to the company, focused on technology and products.
I’m also looking forward to working with John Thompson as our new Chairman of the Board.

While we have seen great success, we are hungry to do more. Our industry does not respect tradition
— it only respects innovation. This is a critical time for the industry and for Microsoft. Make no mistake,
we are headed for greater places — as technology evolves and we evolve with and ahead of it. Our
job is to ensure that Microsoft thrives in a mobile and cloud-first world.

As we start a new phase of our journey together, I wanted to share some background on myself and
what inspires and motivates me.

Who am I?

I am 46. I’ve been married for 22 years and we have 3 kids. And like anyone else, a lot of what I do
and how I think has been shaped by my family and my overall life experiences. Many who know me
say I am also defined by my curiosity and thirst for learning. I buy more books than I can finish. I sign
up for more online courses than I can complete. I fundamentally believe that if you are not learning
new things, you stop doing great and useful things. So family, curiosity and hunger for knowledge all
define me.

Why am I here?

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

I am here for the same reason I think most people join Microsoft — to change the world through
technology that empowers people to do amazing things. I know it can sound hyperbolic — and yet it’s
true. We have done it, we’re doing it today, and we are the team that will do it again.

I believe over the next decade computing will become even more ubiquitous and intelligence will
become ambient. The coevolution of software and new hardware form factors will intermediate and
digitize — many of the things we do and experience in business, life and our world. This will be made
possible by an ever-growing network of connected devices, incredible computing capacity from the
cloud, insights from big data, and intelligence from machine learning.

This is a software-powered world.

It will better connect us to our friends and families and help us see, express, and share our world in
ways never before possible. It will enable businesses to engage customers in more meaningful ways.

I am here because we have unparalleled capability to make an impact.

Why are we here?

In our early history, our mission was about the PC on every desk and home, a goal we have mostly
achieved in the developed world. Today we’re focused on a broader range of devices. While the deal
is not yet complete, we will welcome to our family Nokia devices and services and the new mobile
capabilities they bring us.

As we look forward, we must zero in on what Microsoft can uniquely contribute to the world. The
opportunity ahead will require us to reimagine a lot of what we have done in the past for a mobile and
cloud-first world, and do new things.

We are the only ones who can harness the power of software and deliver it through devices and
services that truly empower every individual and every organisation. We are the only company with
history and continued focus in building platforms and ecosystems that create broad opportunity.

Qi Lu captured it well in a recent meeting when he said that Microsoft uniquely empowers people to
“do more.” This doesn’t mean that we need to do more things, but that the work we do empowers the
world to do more of what they care about — get stuff done, have fun, communicate and accomplish
great things. This is the core of who we are, and driving this core value in all that we do — be it the
cloud or device experiences — is why we are here.

What do we do next?

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

To paraphrase a quote from Oscar Wilde — we need to believe in the impossible and remove the
improbable.

This starts with clarity of purpose and sense of mission that will lead us to imagine the impossible and
deliver it. We need to prioritize innovation that is centered on our core value of empowering users and
organisations to “do more.” We have picked a set of high-value activities as part of our One Microsoft
strategy. And with every service and device launch going forward we need to bring more innovation
to bear around these scenarios.

Next, every one of us needs to do our best work, lead and help drive cultural change. We sometimes
underestimate what we each can do to make things happen and overestimate what others need to do
to move us forward. We must change this.

Finally, I truly believe that each of us must find meaning in our work. The best work happens when
you know that it’s not just work, but something that will improve other people’s lives. This is the
opportunity that drives each of us at this company.

Many companies aspire to change the world. But very few have all the elements required: talent,
resources, and perseverance. Microsoft has proven that it has all three in abundance. And as the new
CEO, I can’t ask for a better foundation.

Let’s build on this foundation together.

Satya

Source: Microsoft

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

Exhibit 5: Satya Nadella’s letter to “the two families that have shaped my life”

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

References and Notes

1 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella: The C In CEO Stands For Culture. [online] Available at:
www.fastcompany.com/40457741/satya-nadella-the-c-in-ceo-stands-for-culture

2 Fortune. (2018). Microsoft’s office: Why insiders think top management has lost its way. [online] Available at:
http://fortune.com/2011/03/31/microsofts-office-why-insiders-think-top-management-has-lost-its-way/

3 Eichenwald, K. (2018). How Microsoft Lost Its Mojo: Steve Ballmer and Corporate America’s Most Spectacular
Decline. [online] The Hive. Available at: www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-
ballmer

4 Eichenwald, K. (2018). How Microsoft Lost Its Mojo: Steve Ballmer and Corporate America’s Most Spectacular
Decline. [online] The Hive. Available at: www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-
ballmer

5 Bergen, J. (2018). Google pays 23% more than industry average, and then there’s the perks – Geek.com. [online]
Geek.com. Available at: www.geek.com/news/google-pays-23-more-than-industry-average-and-then-theres-the-
perks-1390323/

6 Paragraph excerpted from Fast Company and adapted by case writer to include chronology. (2018). Satya
Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at: www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-
rewrites-microsofts-code

7 Jackdaw Research. (2018). Media. [online] Available at: https://jackdawresearch.com/media/
8 Harvard Business Review. (2018). Microsoft’s CEO on Rediscovering the Company’s Soul. [online] Available at:

https://hbr.org/ideacast/2017/09/microsofts-ceo-on-rediscovering-the-companys-soul.html
9 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine

a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.92.

10 Ibid, p.93.
11 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella: The C In CEO Stands For Culture. [online] Available at:

www.fastcompany.com/40457741/satya-nadella-the-c-in-ceo-stands-for-culture
12 Phil Spencer (2018). 2018 Dice Keynote Transcript. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at:

www.slideshare.net/PhilSpencer/2018-dice-keynote-transcript
13 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at:

www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-rewrites-microsofts-code
14 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine

a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.75-76.
15 Ibid, p.81.
16 Interview with Jill Tracie Nichols, Satya Nadella’s Chief of Staff 2014–2017 and co-author of Hit Refresh: The

Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone, London, May 1, 2018
17 Ibid, p.80.
18 Ibid, p.83.
19 Ibid, p.93-94.
20 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at:

www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-rewrites-microsofts-code
21 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine

a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.92.

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

22 Microsoft.com. (2018). Empowering Our Employees – Microsoft Corporate Social Responsibility. [online] Available

at: www.microsoft.com/en-us/about/corporate-responsibility/empowering-employees
23 Interview with Kathleen Hogan. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kf7mhkG6cM
24 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine

a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.101.
25 Interview with Jill Tracie Nichols, Satya Nadella’s Chief of Staff 2014–2017 and co-author of Hit Refresh: The

Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone, London, May 1, 2018
26 Interview with Hogan www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kf7mhkG6cM
27 Ibid.
28 Cable, D. (2018). Alive at Work: The Neuroscience of Helping Your People Love What They Do. Harvard

Business Review Press, p.168.
29 Ibid, p.169.
30 Ibid, p.170.
31 BBC News. (2018). Xbox apologises for go-go dancer party. [online] Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35861212
32 Phil Spencer (2018). 2018 Dice Keynote Transcript. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at:

www.slideshare.net/PhilSpencer/2018-dice-keynote-transcript
33 The Verge. (2018). Microsoft says it will tie executive bonuses to diversity hiring goals. [online] Available at:

www.theverge.com/2016/11/18/13681738/microsoft-diversity-goals-executive-bonuses-women-in-tech
34 McKinsey & Company. (2018). Ahead of the curve: The future of performance management. [online] Available at:

www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organisation/our-insights/ahead-of-the-curve-the-future-of-performance-
management

35 Interview with Jill Tracie Nichols, Satya Nadella’s Chief of Staff 2014–2017 and co-author of Hit Refresh: The
Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone, London, May 1, 2018

36 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine
a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.113.

37 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at:
www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-rewrites-microsofts-code

38 West, J. (2018). Microsoft’s disastrous Tay experiment shows the hidden dangers of AI. [online] Quartz. Available
at: https://qz.com/653084/microsofts-disastrous-tay-experiment-shows-the-hidden-dangers-of-ai/

39 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at:
www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-rewrites-microsofts-code

40 Phil Spencer (2018). 2018 Dice Keynote Transcript. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at:
www.slideshare.net/PhilSpencer/2018-dice-keynote-transcript

41 Chamberlain, D. (2018). Who’s Hiring AI Talent in America? – Glassdoor Economic Research. [online] Glassdoor
Economic Research. Available at: www.glassdoor.com/research/studies/ai-jobs/

42 Fast Company. (2018). Satya Nadella Rewrites Microsoft’s Code. [online] Available at:
www.fastcompany.com/40457458/satya-nadella-rewrites-microsofts-code

43 Nadella, S., Shaw, G. and Nichols, J. (2017). Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine
a Better Future for Everyone. William Collins, p.117.

44 Ibid, p.119.

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

LBS128

45 Phil Spencer (2018). 2018 Dice Keynote Transcript. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at:

www.slideshare.net/PhilSpencer/2018-dice-keynote-transcript
46 News.microsoft.com. (2018). [online] Available at: news.microsoft.com/uploads/2017/09/Satya-Nadella-transcript-

Ignite-2017

This document is authorized for use only by Vanessa Woodard in Leadership in the 21st Century at Strayer University, 2020.

Structure Bookmarks

Satya Nadella at Microsoft: Instilling a growth mindset
The “lost decade”
Satya Nadella
Taking charge
From know-it-alls to learn-it-alls
Grounding the pillars
Role-modelling the change
Four years on
The future
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Evolution of Microsoft’s share price
Exhibit 2: Top players by market share and revenue growth in cloud computing, Q2 2017
Exhibit 3: Organisation-chart cartoon courtesy of Manu Cornet
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5: Satya Nadella’s letter to “the two families that have shaped my life”

References and Notes

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages false /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 600 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages false /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages false
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 600
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages false
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages false
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages false
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description << /ARA
/BGR
/CHS
/CHT
/CZE
/DAN
/DEU
/ESP
/ETI
/FRA
/GRE
/HEB
/HRV
/HUN
/ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 6.0 e versioni successive.)
/JPN
/KOR
/LTH
/LVI
/NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 6.0 en hoger.)
/NOR
/POL
/PTB
/RUM
/RUS
/SKY
/SLV
/SUO
/SVE
/TUR
/UKR
/ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents suitable for reliable viewing and printing of business documents. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 6.0 and later.)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

Thomas–Kilmann
Instrument

Conflict Mode
P R O F I L E A N D I N T E R P R E T I V E R E P O R T

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Profile and Interpretive Report Copyright 2001, 2007 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved. The TKI logo and the CPP logo are
trademarks or registered trademarks of CPP, Inc., in the United States and other countries.

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

Report prepared for

VANESSA
WOODARD

February 4, 2020

Interpreted by

JWMI

JWI 510

Leadership in the 21st Century

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
22PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Five Conflict-Handling Modes
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assesses an individual’s behavior in conflict
situations—that is, situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible.
In conflict situations, we can describe a person’s behavior along two basic dimensions*: (1)
assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and
(2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s
concerns. These two dimensions of behavior can be used to define five methods of dealing with
conflict. These five conflict-handling modes are shown below:

COMPETING COLLABORATING

COMPROMISING

AVOIDING ACCOMMODATING

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV

E
N

E
S
S

U
N

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV
E

COOPERATIVENESS

UNCOOPERATIVE COOPERATIVE

* This two-dimensional model of conflict-handling behavior is adapted from “Conflict and Conflict Management” by Kenneth Thomas in The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, edited by Marvin Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976). Another valuable contribution in this field is the work by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in The Managerial Grid
(Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964, 1994).

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
33PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an
individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power
seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for your
rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. When collaborating, an individual attempts to
work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves
digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an
alternative that meets both sets of concerns. Collaborating between two persons might take
the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, resolving some
condition that would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying
to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising,
an individual has the objective of finding an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that
partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and
accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it
addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as
collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or
seeking a quick middle-ground position.

C O M P E T I N G

C O L L A B O R A T I N G

C O M P R O M I S I N G

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately
pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the
conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an
issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When
accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the
other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the
form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer
not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.

A C C O M M O D A T I N G

A V O I D I N G

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
44PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Your TKI Profile
Your profile of TKI scores, shown below, indicates the repertoire of conflict-handling modes you use in
the kinds of conflicts you face. Your scores are arranged in descending order by percentile, with your
highest score indicating your most frequently used conflict mode.

100%75%

LOW

25%0%

MEDIUM HIGH

PERCENTILE SCOREMODE RAW
SCORE

ACCOMMODATING 8 87%

AVOIDING 8 78%

COMPETING 6 69%

COLLABORATING 6 41%

COMPROMISING 2 1%

Your raw score on each conflict-handling mode is simply the number of times you chose a TKI
statement for that mode. More important are your percentile scores. These show how your raw scores
compare to those of a representative sample of 8,000 employed adults who have already taken the
TKI.* Your percentile scores show the percentage of people in the sample who scored the same as or
lower than you on each mode.

Your profile shows that you scored highest on accommodating, where your score of 8 gave you a
percentile score of 87. This means you scored higher than 87 percent of the people in the sample on
accommodating. In contrast, you scored lowest on compromising, where your percentile score is
comparable to the lowest scores on this conflict mode in the sample.

The vertical lines at the 25th and 75th percentiles separate the middle 50 percent of the scores on
each mode from the top 25 percent and the bottom 25 percent. Scores that fall in the top
25 percent are considered high. Similarly, scores that fall in the bottom 25 percent are considered
low. Scores that fall in the middle 50 percent are considered medium. Look at your scores to see
where they fall within this range.

*The norm sample consisted of 4,000 women and 4,000 men, ages 20 through 70, who were employed full-time in the United States. Data were drawn from a database of 59,000 cases
collected between 2002 and 2005 and were sampled to ensure representative numbers of people by organizational level and race/ethnicity.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
55PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interpreting Your Scores
When you look at your profile on the TKI, you probably want to know, “What are the correct
answers?” In the case of conflict-handling behavior, there are no right or wrong answers. All five
modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills. Our conventional
wisdom recognizes, for example, that often “Two heads are better than one” (collaborating). But it
also says, “Kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodating), “Split the difference” (compromising),
“Leave well enough alone” (avoiding), and “Might makes right” (competing). The effectiveness of a
given conflict-handling mode depends on the requirements of the specific situation and the skill with
which you use that mode.

You are capable of using all five conflict-handling modes; you cannot be characterized as having a
single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, most people use some modes more readily than
others, develop more skills in those modes, and therefore tend to rely on them more heavily. Many
have a clear favorite. The conflict behaviors you use are the result of both your personal predispositions
and the requirements of the situations in which you find yourself.

The following pages provide feedback on your conflict-handling modes as indicated by your TKI scores,
beginning with your most frequently used mode, accommodating.

To help you judge how appropriate your use of the five modes is for your situation, this section lists a
number of uses for each mode. The uses are based on lists generated by company presidents. In
addition, because your predispositions may lead you to rely on some conflict behaviors more or less
than necessary, this section also lists some diagnostic questions concerning warning signs for the
overuse or underuse of each mode.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
66PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentile: 87%
Range: High

Accommodating

Uses

You may be using this mode most frequently because of the circumstances you face. A group of
company presidents identified the following situations as times when accommodating is especially
useful and effective:

• When you realize that you are wrong—to allow a better solution to be considered, to learn from
others, and to show that you are reasonable

• When the issue is much more important to the other person than it is to you—to satisfy the needs
of others and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship

• When you want to build up social credits for later issues that are important to you

• When you are outmatched and losing and more competition would only damage your cause

• When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important

• When you want to help your employees develop by allowing them to experiment and learn from
their mistakes

Accommodating as a Style

Your frequent use of accommodating may also be part of an accommodating style you have developed
to deal with conflict. Styles are rooted in personal beliefs, values, and motives that “push” one’s
conflict behavior in a consistent direction.

Accommodators tend to see conflicts as social/emotional issues to be settled with support and
sensitivity. They often believe in the Golden Rule (“Do unto others . . .”) and believe that generosity
will eventually be rewarded in kind. They regard coworkers as friends—people to be supported and
looked after—and value support, generosity, goodwill, and team cohesiveness. They often see
compassion and friendship as more important than the minor issues involved in most conflicts.
Accommodators help coworkers meet their concerns—for the sake of the coworker and to help build
cohesiveness and goodwill.*

* This style description is adapted with permission from Introduction to Conflict and Teams by Kenneth W. Thomas and Gail Fann Thomas (Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 2004).

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
77PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contributions of an Accommodating Style

Accommodators’ compassion and generosity can serve an important role in the interpersonal relations
of their organization—as a kind of shock absorber when people are under stress. Accommodators help
maintain goodwill and trust. They provide psychological support and a sympathetic ear and can serve
as peacemakers to restore harmony. Their style helps soothe hurt feelings and resentments.

Questions to Ask

The danger in any style is that you may use your preferred mode out of habit—even when it is not the
most appropriate mode. Because you scored in the high range on accommodating, there is a good
chance that you are overusing this conflict mode and underusing others. To help you determine if you
are overusing accommodating, consider the following questions:

Signs of overuse

• Do you feel that your ideas and concerns sometimes don’t get the attention they deserve?
Deferring too much to the concerns of others can deprive you of influence, respect, and
recognition. It can also deprive the organization of your potential contributions.

• Is discipline lax?
Although discipline for its own sake may be of little value, some rules, procedures, and assignments
are crucial and need to be enforced. Accommodating on these issues may harm you, others, or the
organization.

In contrast, the fact that you scored high on accommodating makes it unlikely that you are underusing
this mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of underuse in others:

Signs of underuse

• Having trouble building goodwill.
Accommodating on minor issues that are important to others is a gesture of goodwill.

• Being viewed as unreasonable.

• Having trouble admitting when one is wrong.

• Failing to recognize legitimate exceptions to the rules.

• Refusing to give up.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
88PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentile: 78%
Range: High

Avoiding

Uses

• When an issue is unimportant or when other, more important issues are pressing

• When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns—for example, when you have low power
or you are frustrated by something that would be very difficult to change

• When the potential costs of confronting a conflict outweigh the benefits of its resolution

• When you need to let people cool down—to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain
perspective and composure

• When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision

• When others can resolve the issue more effectively

• When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another, more basic issue

Questions to Ask

Because you scored high on avoiding, there is a good chance that you are overusing this mode. To help
you determine whether this is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of overuse

• Does coordination suffer because people sometimes have trouble getting your input on issues?

• Does it sometimes appear that people are “walking on eggshells”?
Sometimes a disproportionate amount of energy is devoted to caution and avoiding issues,
indicating that those issues need to be faced and resolved.

• Are decisions on important issues sometimes made by default?

In contrast, the fact that you scored high on avoiding makes it unlikely that you are underusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of underuse in others:

Signs of underuse

• Hurting people’s feelings or stirring up hostilities.
People who score low on avoiding may need to exercise more discretion and tact, learning to
frame issues in nonthreatening ways.

• Feeling harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues.
This symptom may indicate a need to set priorities—that is, to decide which less-important issues
can be avoided or delegated to others.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
99PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentile: 69%
Range: Medium

Competing

Uses

• When quick, decisive action is vital—for example, in an emergency

• On important issues when unpopular courses of action need implementing—for example, cost
cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline

• On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right

• When you need to protect yourself from people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior

Questions to Ask

Because you scored in the medium range on competing, there is little reason to suspect that you
overuse or underuse this mode in general. However, the questions below can help you determine if you
are overusing or underusing competing in specific situations.

Signs of overuse

• Are you surrounded by “yes” people?
If so, perhaps it’s because they have learned that it’s unwise to disagree with you or have given up
trying to influence you. This closes you off from information.

• Are others afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to you?
In a competitive climate, one must fight for influence and respect, acting more certain and
confident than one feels. This means that people are less able to ask for information and
opinions—they are less likely to learn.

Signs of underuse

• Do you often feel powerless in situations?
You may be unaware of the power you have, unskilled in its use, or uncomfortable with the idea
of using it. This may hinder your effectiveness by restricting your influence.

• Do you sometimes have trouble taking a firm stand, even when you see the need?
Sometimes concerns for others’ feelings or anxieties about the use of power cause people to
vacillate, which may result in postponing the decision and adding to the suffering and/or
resentment of others.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
1010PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentile: 41%
Range: Medium

Collaborating

Uses

• When you need to find an integrative solution and the concerns of both parties are too important to
be compromised

• When your objective is to learn and you wish to test your assumptions and understand others’
views

• When you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem

• When you want to gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision

• When you need to work through hard feelings that have been interfering with a relationship

Questions to Ask

Because you scored in the medium range on collaborating, there is little reason to suspect that you
overuse or underuse this mode in general. However, the questions below can help you determine if you
are overusing or underusing collaborating in specific situations.

Signs of overuse

• Do you sometimes spend time discussing issues in depth that don’t seem to warrant it?
Collaboration takes time and energy—perhaps the scarcest organizational resources. Trivial
problems don’t require optimal solutions, and not all personal differences need to be hashed out.
The overuse of collaboration and consensual decision making sometimes represents a desire to
minimize risk—by diffusing responsibility for a decision or by postponing action.

• Does your collaborative behavior fail to elicit collaborative responses from others?
The exploratory and tentative nature of some collaborative behavior may make it easy for others to
disregard your overtures or take advantage of the trust and openness you display. You may be
missing some cues that would indicate the presence of defensiveness, strong feelings, impatience,
competitiveness, or conflicting interests.

Signs of underuse

• Is it difficult for you to see differences as opportunities for joint gain, learning, or problem solving?
Although conflict situations often involve threatening or unproductive aspects, approaching all
conflicts with pessimism can prevent people from seeing collaborative possibilities and thus deprive
them of the mutual gains and satisfactions that accompany successful collaboration.

• Are others uncommitted to your decisions or policies?
Perhaps their concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies.

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT VANESSA WOODARD
1111PAGEFEBRUARY 4, 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentile: 1%
Range: Low

Compromising

Uses

• When goals are moderately important but not worth the effort or the potential disruption involved
in using more assertive modes

• When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals—as in
labor–management bargaining

• When you want to achieve a temporary settlement of a complex issue

• When you need to arrive at an expedient solution under time pressure

• As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails

Questions to Ask

Because you scored low on compromising, there is a good chance that you are underusing this mode.
To help you determine whether that is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of underuse

• Do you sometimes find yourself too sensitive or embarrassed to engage in the give-and-take of
bargaining?
This reticence can keep you from getting a fair share in negotiations—for yourself, your team, or
your organization.

• Do you sometimes find it difficult to make concessions?
Without this safety valve, you may have trouble gracefully getting out of mutually destructive
arguments, power struggles, and so on.

In contrast, the fact that you scored low on compromising makes it unlikely that you are overusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of overuse in others:

Signs of overuse

• Concentrating so heavily on the practicalities and tactics of compromise that one loses sight of
larger issues.
Neglected issues may include principles, values, long-term objectives, or company welfare.

• Creating a cynical climate of gamesmanship.
An emphasis on bargaining and trading may create a climate that undermines interpersonal trust
and deflects attention from the merits of the issues.

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

Thomas–Kilmann
Instrument

Conflict Mode
P R O F I L E A N D I N T E R P R E T I V E R E P O R T

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

Report prepared for

VANESSA
WOODARD

February 4, 2020

Interpreted by

JWMI

JWI 510

Leadership in the 21st Century

COMPETING COLLABORATING

COMPROMISING

AVOIDING ACCOMMODATING

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV

E
N

E
S
S

U
N

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV
E

COOPERATIVENESS

UNCOOPERATIVE COOPERATIVE

C O M P E T I N G

C O L L A B O R A T I N G

C O M P R O M I S I N G

A C C O M M O D A T I N G

A V O I D I N G

100%75%

LOW

25%0%

MEDIUM HIGH

PERCENTILE SCOREMODE RAW
SCORE

ACCOMMODATING 8 87%

AVOIDING 8 78%

COMPETING 6 69%

COLLABORATING 6 41%

COMPROMISING 2 1%

The following pages provide feedback on your conflict-handling modes as indicated by your TKI scores,
beginning with your most frequently used mode, accommodating.

Percentile: 87%
Range: High

Accommodating

Uses

• When you realize that you are wrong—to allow a better solution to be considered, to learn from
others, and to show that you are reasonable

• When the issue is much more important to the other person than it is to you—to satisfy the needs
of others and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship

• When you want to build up social credits for later issues that are important to you

• When you are outmatched and losing and more competition would only damage your cause

• When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important

• When you want to help your employees develop by allowing them to experiment and learn from
their mistakes

Accommodating as a Style

* This style description is adapted with permission from Introduction to Conflict and Teams by Kenneth W. Thomas and Gail Fann Thomas (Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 2004).

Contributions of an Accommodating Style

Questions to Ask

Signs of overuse

In contrast, the fact that you scored high on accommodating makes it unlikely that you are underusing
this mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of underuse in others:

Signs of underuse

• Having trouble building goodwill.
Accommodating on minor issues that are important to others is a gesture of goodwill.

• Being viewed as unreasonable.

• Having trouble admitting when one is wrong.

• Failing to recognize legitimate exceptions to the rules.

• Refusing to give up.

Percentile: 78%
Range: High

Avoiding

Uses

• When an issue is unimportant or when other, more important issues are pressing

• When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns—for example, when you have low power
or you are frustrated by something that would be very difficult to change

• When the potential costs of confronting a conflict outweigh the benefits of its resolution

• When you need to let people cool down—to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain
perspective and composure

• When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision

• When others can resolve the issue more effectively

• When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another, more basic issue

Questions to Ask

Because you scored high on avoiding, there is a good chance that you are overusing this mode. To help
you determine whether this is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of overuse

• Does coordination suffer because people sometimes have trouble getting your input on issues?

• Are decisions on important issues sometimes made by default?

In contrast, the fact that you scored high on avoiding makes it unlikely that you are underusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of underuse in others:

Signs of underuse

• Hurting people’s feelings or stirring up hostilities.
People who score low on avoiding may need to exercise more discretion and tact, learning to
frame issues in nonthreatening ways.

• Feeling harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues.
This symptom may indicate a need to set priorities—that is, to decide which less-important issues
can be avoided or delegated to others.

Percentile: 69%
Range: Medium

Competing

Uses

• When quick, decisive action is vital—for example, in an emergency

• On important issues when unpopular courses of action need implementing—for example, cost
cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline

• On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right

• When you need to protect yourself from people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior

Questions to Ask

Signs of overuse

Signs of underuse

Percentile: 41%
Range: Medium

Collaborating

Uses

• When you need to find an integrative solution and the concerns of both parties are too important to
be compromised

• When your objective is to learn and you wish to test your assumptions and understand others’
views

• When you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem

• When you want to gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision

• When you need to work through hard feelings that have been interfering with a relationship

Questions to Ask

Signs of overuse

Signs of underuse

• Are others uncommitted to your decisions or policies?
Perhaps their concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies.

Percentile: 1%
Range: Low

Compromising

Uses

• When goals are moderately important but not worth the effort or the potential disruption involved
in using more assertive modes

• When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals—as in
labor–management bargaining

• When you want to achieve a temporary settlement of a complex issue

• When you need to arrive at an expedient solution under time pressure

• As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails

Questions to Ask

Because you scored low on compromising, there is a good chance that you are underusing this mode.
To help you determine whether that is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of underuse

• Do you sometimes find it difficult to make concessions?
Without this safety valve, you may have trouble gracefully getting out of mutually destructive
arguments, power struggles, and so on.

In contrast, the fact that you scored low on compromising makes it unlikely that you are overusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of overuse in others:

Signs of overuse

• Creating a cynical climate of gamesmanship.
An emphasis on bargaining and trading may create a climate that undermines interpersonal trust
and deflects attention from the merits of the issues.

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ I need a discussion for wk 5 and 2 responses ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now