Interpersonal Relations at Work
Interpersonal skills for CGPSC CSAT: empathy, emotional intelligence, Johari window, transactional analysis, assertiveness, conflict styles and teamwork.
Prerequisites
- Communication Skills — listening, feedback and barriers are the base of every interpersonal skill.
- Useful background: Public Administration for how a district office is organised.
The Hook: Two Tehsildars, One Problem
In two tehsils of the same district, the revenue staff are overloaded during the kharif girdawari (गिरदावरी, crop inspection) season. In the first tehsil, the tehsildar circulates a sharp memo threatening action against “lazy patwaris”; within a week, two patwaris apply for leave and the rest do the bare minimum. In the second, the tehsildar calls the patwaris together, listens to why villages are being missed (no transport, app glitches), arranges shared vehicles, and publicly thanks the team that finishes first.
Same rules, same workload, very different results. The difference is interpersonal skill.
The question this page answers: what are the core interpersonal skills, which frameworks describe them, and how do they decide the “best response” in a CSAT situation?
Why it matters for CGPSC: Paper II situation questions are built on these ideas even when they do not name them — the right option is usually the one that is empathetic, assertive (not aggressive or passive) and collaborative. The frameworks below give you the vocabulary to justify a choice and to spot the trap options.
What Interpersonal Skills Are
Interpersonal skills (अंतर्वैयक्तिक कौशल) are the abilities that let a person work effectively with others: understanding them, being understood, influencing without coercion, resolving disagreement and building trust. They are sometimes called “people skills” or “soft skills”.
| Skill | In one line | In a district office |
|---|---|---|
| Empathy | Understanding another’s feelings and point of view | Seeing why an applicant is angry after his fifth visit |
| Active listening | Full attention to words and feelings | Letting a complainant finish before responding |
| Assertiveness | Stating your view firmly and respectfully | Declining an improper request politely but clearly |
| Conflict resolution | Turning disagreement into a workable solution | Mediating between two departments over a camp |
| Teamwork | Working towards a shared goal | Revenue, health and panchayat staff running one camp |
| Negotiation | Reaching agreement where interests differ | Settling a road-alignment dispute with villagers |
| Giving and receiving feedback | Helping others improve; accepting criticism | Reviewing a subordinate’s report constructively |
| Trust-building | Being consistent, honest and reliable | Keeping promises made at a jan chaupal |
Empathy vs sympathy
| Sympathy (सहानुभूति) | Empathy (समानुभूति) |
|---|---|
| Feeling sorry for someone | Understanding the feeling from their side |
| “I feel bad for you” | “I can see why this delay has hurt your family’s plans” |
| Can create distance or pity | Builds connection and problem-solving |
Empathy does not mean agreeing or breaking rules. An officer can fully understand a farmer’s distress and still follow the procedure — while explaining it, and helping him through it.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI, भावनात्मक बुद्धिमत्ता) is the ability to recognise, understand and manage one’s own emotions and those of others. The term was used in academic work by Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990) and popularised by Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence (1995). Goleman’s widely taught framework has five components:
| Component | Faces | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-awareness | Self | Knowing your emotions, strengths and limits | Noticing you are irritated before a tense meeting |
| Self-regulation | Self | Controlling impulses, staying calm | Not shouting back at an abusive visitor |
| Motivation | Self | Inner drive beyond money or status | Working on a difficult scheme because it matters |
| Empathy | Others | Understanding others’ emotions | Sensing a junior’s anxiety about a transfer |
| Social skills | Others | Managing relationships, influencing, resolving conflict | Getting two rival groups to agree on a water-sharing plan |
The Johari Window
Proposed by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham (1955) — the name joins their first names. It maps self-awareness and openness in relationships.
| Known to self | Not known to self | |
|---|---|---|
| Known to others | Open (arena) | Blind spot |
| Not known to others | Hidden (façade) | Unknown |
- Feedback from others shrinks the blind area.
- Self-disclosure shrinks the hidden area.
- Both together enlarge the open area — the zone where trust and effective work happen.
Transactional Analysis
Developed by psychiatrist Eric Berne (1950s; Games People Play, 1964). Every person has three ego states:
| Ego state | Behaves like | Typical words |
|---|---|---|
| Parent | Critical (rules, judging) or nurturing (caring, protective) | “You should always…”, “Don’t worry, I’ll help” |
| Adult | Rational, factual, problem-solving | “What are the facts? What are the options?” |
| Child | Natural (spontaneous, emotional) or adapted (complying, rebellious) | “This is unfair!”, “Whatever you say, sir” |
- A complementary transaction gets the response the sender expected (Adult → Adult, Adult ← Adult); communication flows.
- A crossed transaction gets an unexpected ego-state response (an Adult question met with a Critical-Parent reply); communication breaks down.
- Life positions were popularised by Thomas Harris’s I’m OK — You’re OK (1967). The healthy position is “I’m OK — You’re OK”.
Assertiveness — the Middle Path
| Style | Behaviour | Message | Example (a senior asks you to skip a verification) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passive | Avoids conflict, gives in, hides own view | “Your needs matter, mine don’t” | Skips the verification silently |
| Aggressive | Dominates, blames, threatens | “My needs matter, yours don’t” | Accuses the senior of corruption in front of staff |
| Passive-aggressive | Agrees outwardly, resists indirectly | Hidden hostility | Agrees, then deliberately delays the file |
| Assertive | Firm, honest, respectful | “Both our needs matter” | Politely explains the rule, offers the fastest lawful route, and records it on file |
Assertive statements usually use “I” language (“I am unable to sign this without the field report”) rather than blaming “you” language (“You are trying to bend the rules”).
Conflict-Handling Styles
The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, 1974) places five styles on two axes: assertiveness (concern for own goals) and cooperativeness (concern for others’ goals).
| Style | Assertive | Cooperative | Outcome | When it fits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competing | High | Low | Win–lose | Emergencies, enforcing law and safety |
| Collaborating | High | High | Win–win | Important issues where both sides’ needs can be met |
| Compromising | Medium | Medium | Partial win–partial win | Time pressure, equal power, temporary settlement |
| Avoiding | Low | Low | Lose–lose (issue stays) | Trivial issues, or a cooling-off period |
| Accommodating | Low | High | Lose–win | Issue matters more to the other side; preserving goodwill |
graph TD
A[Conflict arises] --> B{Is law, safety or ethics at stake?}
B -->|Yes| C[Firm: enforce rules, explain reasons]
B -->|No| D{Is the issue important to both sides?}
D -->|Yes| E[Collaborate: listen, find a win-win]
D -->|No, minor| F[Compromise or accommodate]
E --> G[Record the agreement and follow up]
C --> GTeams and Group Dynamics
Bruce Tuckman (1965) described four stages of team development; a fifth, adjourning, was added with Mary Ann Jensen in 1977.
| Stage | What happens | Leader’s role |
|---|---|---|
| Forming | Polite, uncertain, roles unclear | Give direction and clear roles |
| Storming | Disagreements, power struggles | Mediate, keep focus on the goal |
| Norming | Rules and trust settle | Encourage, delegate |
| Performing | Team works smoothly and independently | Support, step back |
| Adjourning | Task ends, team disbands | Recognise contributions, close formally |
Good team behaviour in an office: share credit publicly, take responsibility for failures, praise in public and correct in private, distribute work fairly, and keep everyone informed.
Negotiation
- Distributive (win–lose): a fixed pie is split; one side’s gain is the other’s loss.
- Integrative (win–win): the parties look for options that enlarge the pie.
- Getting to Yes (Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1981) gave the principled-negotiation rules: separate the people from the problem, focus on interests, not positions, invent options for mutual gain, and use objective criteria. It also popularised BATNA — Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
Memory Tricks
- Goleman’s five: “SSM-ES” — Self-awareness, Self-regulation, Motivation (the three “self” skills), then Empathy, Social skills (the two “others” skills).
- Johari = Joe + Harry (Joseph Luft + Harrington Ingham). Feedback fixes the blind spot; disclosure opens the hidden box.
- TA = “PAC” — Parent, Adult, Child. CSAT answers live in the A.
- Thomas–Kilmann “CCCAA” — Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, Accommodating. Only Collaborating is high–high.
- Tuckman rhymes: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing — then Adjourning.
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| Empathy — understanding from their side | Sympathy — feeling sorry for them | |
| Assertive — firm and respectful | Aggressive — firm and disrespectful | |
| Collaborating — both win fully (high–high) | Compromising — both give up something (medium–medium) | |
| Avoiding — neither side’s concern addressed | Accommodating — other side’s concern addressed, own given up | |
| Johari blind area — known to others, not to self | Johari hidden area — known to self, not to others | |
| Complementary transaction — expected response | Crossed transaction — unexpected ego state, breakdown | |
| Positions — what people say they want | Interests — why they want it |
Common Mistakes
Practice
Level 1: Foundation
- In the Johari window, which area is reduced by receiving feedback from others?
- Which ego state in transactional analysis is rational and fact-based?
- Which Thomas–Kilmann style is high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness?
- Name Tuckman’s stage marked by disagreements and power struggles.
Answers
- The blind area.
- Adult.
- Collaborating.
- Storming.
Level 2: Prelims MCQs
All situations are hypothetical practice items, not real CGPSC questions.
Q1. Two section officers in your district office keep arguing over who should prepare the monthly review report, and the report is now late. As the head of office, you should:
(a) Prepare the report yourself to avoid the conflict (b) Call both, hear each side, clarify responsibilities in writing and fix a timeline (c) Issue a show-cause notice to both for the delay (d) Ask the senior of the two to decide, since seniority settles such matters
Answer: (b)
Q2. Consider the following statements:
- In Goleman’s framework, empathy and social skills relate to managing relationships with others.
- In the Johari window, self-disclosure reduces the hidden area.
- A crossed transaction in transactional analysis usually improves communication.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (c) 1 and 2 only
Q3. Match List I (conflict style) with List II (situation):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. Competing | 1. Two departments jointly redesign a camp so both meet their targets |
| B. Collaborating | 2. Officer firmly stops an unsafe gathering near a flooded bridge |
| C. Avoiding | 3. Each side gives up part of its demand to reach a quick settlement |
| D. Compromising | 4. A minor dispute over seating is left alone to cool down |
(a) A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3 (b) A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4 (c) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3 (d) A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
Answer: (c) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
Q4. A senior colleague asks you to clear a beneficiary list without completing the mandatory field verification, saying “it is just a formality”. The most appropriate response is:
(a) Clear the list, since the senior takes responsibility (b) Refuse sharply and complain to the Collector at once (c) Politely explain that verification is mandatory, offer to complete it quickly with extra staff, and note the position on file (d) Agree verbally but quietly keep the file pending
Answer: (c)
Q5. A newly formed block-level task force for a nutrition drive is marked by disputes over roles and who reports to whom. According to Tuckman, the team is in the ______ stage, and the leader should ______.
(a) Forming; step back and let members settle (b) Storming; mediate and clarify roles and goals (c) Norming; delegate more tasks (d) Performing; reduce supervision
Answer: (b)
Level 3: Speed Drill — Decide in 60 Seconds
Name the skill, style or framework. Under 60 seconds each.
- “I understand this delay has cost you two trips; let me check the status right now.” — which skill?
- An officer gives up a minor point so that a large meeting can move on. Conflict style?
- A subordinate says, “Whatever you say, sir,” and never raises problems. TA ego state?
- Your colleague tells you that you interrupt people in meetings, which you never noticed. Johari area reduced?
- “Praise in public, ______ in private.”
- Villagers demand “no tower here”; on listening, they fear radiation near the school. Position or interest?
Answers
- Empathy (with action).
- Accommodating.
- Adapted Child.
- Blind area.
- Correct / criticise.
- “No tower here” is the position; safety of children is the interest — address it with facts and, if possible, siting options.
Quick Revision Table
| Idea | Fact |
|---|---|
| Emotional intelligence | Salovey and Mayer (1990); popularised by Goleman (1995) |
| Goleman’s five | Self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, social skills |
| Johari window | Luft and Ingham (1955); open, blind, hidden, unknown |
| Transactional analysis | Eric Berne; Parent, Adult, Child; complementary vs crossed |
| Life position (healthy) | I’m OK — You’re OK (Thomas Harris, 1967) |
| Thomas–Kilmann (1974) | Competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating |
| Tuckman (1965; adjourning 1977) | Forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning |
| Getting to Yes (1981) | People vs problem, interests not positions, mutual-gain options, objective criteria, BATNA |
| Assertive vs aggressive | Firm + respectful vs firm + disrespectful |
Key Takeaways
- Interpersonal skill = understanding others, being understood, and solving problems with people rather than against them.
- Empathy shapes how a rule is applied, never whether it is applied.
- The best CSAT option is usually the Adult, assertive, collaborative one.
- Be firm (competing) only where law, safety or integrity is at stake — and stay polite while doing it.
- Look beneath positions to interests; that is where win–win solutions live.
What’s Next
- Situation-Based Questions — apply these frameworks to field and office scenarios.
- Communication Skills — revisit listening and feedback.
- Decision Making and Problem Solving — ethical and administrative choices.
- Western Thinkers and Sociology Concepts — the behavioural-science side for Mains.
- Interpersonal and Communication Skills — Quick Revision