CASE STUDY ON GROUP BEHAVIOUR

Hindustan Lever Research Centre (HLRC) was set up in the year 1967 at Mumbai. Atthat time the primary challenge was to find suitable alternatives to the edible oils and fatsthat were being used as raw materials for soaps. Later, import substitution and exportobligations directed the focus towards nonedible oil seeds, infant foods, perfumerychemicals, fine chemicals, polymers and nickel catalyst. This facilitated creation of new brands which helped build new businesses.HUL believes in meritocracy and has a comprehensive performance management system,which ensures that people are rewarded according to their performance and abilities.Almost 47% of the entire managerial cadres are people who have joined us throughlateral recruitment.Over the years many break through innovations have taken place. Hindustan Lever Research gained eminence within Unilever Global R&D and became recognized as oneof the six global R&D Centers of Unilever with the creation of Unilever Research Indiain Bangalore in 1997.At Bangalore R&D center, a team of 10 scientists were appointed for a project onshampoo line. Suranjan Sircar heading the team as Principal Research Scientist with thesupport of Vikas Pawar, Aparna Damle, Jaideep Chatterjee, Amitava Pramanik asResearch Scientists. Suresh Jayaraman & Punam Bandyopadhyay were ResearchAssociates.Vikas Pawar came up with an idea of pet shampoos during brainstorming with the team.Hey, why dont we target the pet care segment because in India, pet industry is beingseriously looked at as a growing industry. I had been working on this concept for a fewweeks & have done some initial research as well, said Vikas. I think we should justfocus on the dog segment & bring out a range of shampoos that are breed specific,contributed by Aparna Damle, who was a new unmarried scientist in the company. Ohthats a really great idea, a breakthrough said Jaideep & Amitava appreciating Aparna.The idea given by Aparna got support from both colleagues & head.Vikas was although not comfortable with his credit being taken away. He also felt thatcreating brand specific shampoos would not be a profitable innovation thus, no pointconcentrating efforts on that. With this in mind he put his point forward but couldntgather consensus.After the discussion, Jaideep & Amitava being friends to Vikas, consoled him & showedconfidence in his plan & thoughts. We understand what you are going through. The ideawas yours & Aparna took all your credit. Dont worry we are with you & be careful fromnext time.

Nevertheless, in the meeting Aparna presented her proposal for the idea mentioningrequirements & chemical details. The meeting began with motivational speech & plan of action by the head of the team. A lot was discussed in detail & tasks were allotted alongwith deadlines.Immediately after the presentation Jaideep & Amitava approached Aparna & eulogizedher research & proposal reiterating the importance of breed specific range of shampoos.Vikas lay aside his ego & went ahead with full dedication & commitment, however during the tenure of the research he noticed poor attitude of team members. Punam wasnot regular with deadlines; she submitted her research on breeds four days after deadline.Suresh was asked to coordinate with members looking into chemical research but

Vikasobserved him most of the times in the recreation room, so he asked him Hi, so whatsthe progress in chemical research so far? Suresh replied that he had done whatever hewas asked to do by senior scientist.He reported this lack of commitment & proactive attitude to Suranjan Sircir & asked for an action against them. Hmm I know whats happening in the team. I have worked for 20 years in this industry & from my experience I know what to do & when to do, heretorted back. Finally the project got completed 4 months after deadline. Vikas went back to the lab;sitting & wondering at the flaws in the group.

Group BehaviorCase Study Analysis The general picture that emerges out of the aforementioned case is that of confusion, aclear lack of leadership and one that is filled with group politics. It is worsened by thegeneral negative attitude among the members and on a whole a lack of clear cutcamaraderie among the whole members that really takes away a good bit of performanceamong the members. Some observations: With the given information, vikas as a person deserves special mention for he isthe one who seems to have a holistic personality and a right kind of employee toguide the organization to the next level of success. He is the one employee who inmy opinion seems to have the kind of constructive thinking for the sake of theorganization as well as doing full justice to his job. He is honest, hardworking andapparently one who is on the lookout for new ideas as he was the one who cameup with one during the brainstorming session and also he had done some researchon his own behalf regarding the same. Aparna as a new member of the team appears to be a very ambitious, intelligentgirl who is also a very opportunist. It is evident from the fact that when vikas presented before the group one idea that was at the best a path or a general viewof what is to be done it was aparna who was quick to grab the opportunity andnarrow the broad idea into a more narrow and specific direction .thus she seems toconvey a very positive and a strong urge to perform on the job. Yet it is also clear that she doesnt seem to be having a regard for her colleagues as it was apparentthat almost stole the vikass idea and took the full credit to her name evenwithout sharing the honors with vikas.She seems to be a very high on the Machscale. Jaideep and amitava appears to share good relationship between them as a goodclique. they are very positive minded people, it is clear from the fact that theyreally appreciated aparna, a newcomer to the

organization and realizing well before that she was a very ambitious employee wasted no time in extolling her work as this will appease her desire for support and recognition among fellowworkers, something that is very important.

Among the formal groups it is very clear that there is a proper structure in theorganization with Suranjan Sircar heading the team as Principal Research Scientist withthe support of Vikas Pawar, Aparna Damle, Jaideep Chatterjee, and Amitava Pramanik asResearch Scientists. Suresh Jayaraman & Punam Bandyopadhyay are ResearchAssociates.The formal group of research scientists appears to be a very able team as they are able toresolve and step aside their personal differences and professional competitiveness to work for the benefit of the organization.Among the informal groups there appears to be a informal group among vikas, jaideepand amitava. Though this informal group is against Aparna in taking away all the creditfrom Vikas, they never let their dissatisfaction come in the way of the progress of group.

In the formal group, the group members seem to be working prettylethargically; as is seen by the fact that Punam didnt meet her deadlines andSuresh spent most of his time in recreation.

Moreover, the group leader/ head Suranjan Circar is too haughty to acceptany suggestions from his subordinates.

In the informal group, there is the dissatisfaction among Vikas and his friendsfor Vikas credit being snatched away by Aparna.

However, it is highly appreciable of Vikas that he lays aside his ego andworks with full dedication for the better of the group.

The team of research associates of punam and Suresh seems to lack the urgeand capabilities to work at the acceptable standards.Thus, though there clearly exists an informal group having a grudge against theformal group, it is observed that the two never really clash. As a result, the delay inthe groups task completion could not attributed to the existence of an informal groupworking against it but is fully because of the wrong attitude of the group memberstowards their work.

Flaws in the team and their solutions

Lack of seriousness -- The first flaw that one can clearly see in the group isthat its members are somewhat casual towards their work. Although the work of the team started on a very serious and determined note, it lost out on themsoon after; as could well be seen in the cases of Punam and Suresh. This canbe rectified by having strong authority and controlling measures in theteam and make it the norm to follow.

Lack of commitment -- The members do not seem to be committed enoughtowards their work. There could be two reasons for it: either the members arenot adequately motivated or they are not serious enough, i.e., the first pointitself. Here is very important that the leader follow the appropriatemotivational concepts and methods to get his team to perform at theirlevel best. May be the job at hand may not be challenging enough forsome. In that case the job profile has to be divided with close care andmatched with the ability and needs of the employees.

There is a clear lack of able leadership skills in the team. It is apparent thatthe team leader Mr. Suranjan circar doesnt seem to have the samecommitment level or he is having a big ego problem. It is evident from thefact that when vikas pointed out the flaws in the team and sought an actionagainst them, the leader circar instead got miffed and retorted angrily. Thisclearly was a communication to vikas that as a leader he is aware of what isto be done and he doesnt need a lesson in that. Clearly in a marketingresearch agency you need to have a flexible and participative form of leadership and Mr. circar needs to change his approach quicklyotherwise the group results will continue to be bad .

In a job like this where the team effort is more important and peopleconcentrate on synergies of the team effort it is very important for the leader of the group to make sure that there is enough camaraderie among themembers. Here aparna appears to be too self centered to think about her coworkers which can in the long run lead to difficulties. Thus it is job of theleader to council aparna and make sure that she understands andappreciates the advantages of being a good team member.

It is a rarity that there are loyal and hardworking employees like vikas whohave a very good attitude and mindset to do the job. He is being treated rather shabbily by the management. For employees like vikas the non monetaryincentives are as important as monetary benefits. Therefore recognizingthe talent the management should really appreciate and keep him happyso that they can get the optimum contribution from him.

PERCEPTION CASE STUDY

Mr. K.P Bakophaid,69, a high profile investor who during his lifetimehad accumulated millions in investments, particularly in the Microsoftshares in the 80s and then in a repeat of his talent to spot the goldbrought Google shares cheap at $1 a share with now the sharesquoting $563\share and his long time friend Mr. j k sinha,65 just retiredCEO of the famed PELIANCE group had been for a while contemplatingfor a move to establish a start up in IT sector as both the gentlemenwere very bullish about the sector in the Indian space. Their thoughts were put down to work as with favorable developmentsat the macro economic level both pledged their funds together to starta IT start up MACROHARD INDIA LTD, a BPO firm having primaryapplications in the back office jobs of banking and investment bankingsector of the US and EUROPE.With this they appointed Mr. Rajiv Negad, 39 an IIM-A pass out. He hadtill that time established himself as an expert in system analysis with aprime acumen of business networks having earlier worked withGoldman sacs in its Hong Kong division. He jumped at the opportunityto be the CEO of the start up. I YEAR LATER MACROHARD had notched up a reasonable success in its limited spaceand were looking like they were heading in the right directions.In the mean time they hired Ms Neha Kakkar , an attractive 25 year oldwho was also like the CEO, a pass out of IIM-A .She was a hard workingemployee and a really bright prospect who had the right ideas andconfidence. Also her most important asset was her ability to gel withher colleges well.Over time there developed good professional repot between Mr. Rajivand neha as it was evident with the fact that Mr. Rajiv was reallyimpressed with the work ethics of his new employee. In the companythere also worked adebayour, a hard working employee. Originallyfrom Nigeria he also was a good disciplined worker who did his job well.Neha kakkar was really rising through the ranks of her job fast.Once neha had this really bright idea of taking the company to thenext level with her idea of venturing into the credit card processing inthe US and also she was quick to spot a potential threat in the form of a competitor taking away their business and for that she wanted todiscuss with Rajiv, her boss, for which he asked her to come to thecanteen to discuss this issue over a cup of coffee.Apparently this discussion now happened quite frequently and becausethe issue was a bit negative with the news of falling profits andcompetitors, Rajiv asked neha not to discuss it now with her coworkersas he felt it might have negative repercussions.3 weeks into thisdiscussion neha was again promoted as there was an urgent need todo it . This wasnt taken well by her co workers who thought that she wasrather using her good looks in making Rajiv do as she wished. This wasapparently being discussed and spread around as rumors by 3 peoplein particular nitin, venkat, and karan who were spreading all sorts of rumors around. There was this further issue that adebayor an equallyhard working candidate wasnt promoted when neha was. In thisregard adebayour was apparently miffed and sought an explanationfrom rajiv who responded that he didnt had that charisma andforward looking skills and therefore he will have to wait a little bit moretime for his promotion. But in this regard an argument ensuredbetween the two,

the news of which spread around the workplace. There was now an open talk that Rajiv was showing favoritism towardneha and everyone wasnt being treated well. Initially Rajiv ignored thistalk. Being a proud manager who thought that since he was notactually doing anything wrong, that should be enoughpeople willrecognize it. Or since he wasnt actually guilty, he believed that he justdoesnt need to defend himself further. Lastly, he also thought thatsince he was the boss people will anyway come to respect hisdecisions.But then in the mean time situations worsened. There was a gradualloss of productivity. Resentment built quickly with favoritism beingsuspected. Resentment quickly become bitterness and bitterness leadto all sorts of behavior which created problems for company.Rajiv now really disturbed with the recent developments in thecompany, quickly sought advice from his HR manager Mr. Sachintendulkar to get the situation back to normal as quickly as possible asIn the highly competitive IT industry he didnt want his company tomiss out on potential opportunities just because of a simple perceptionproblem. As a HR manager what advice and steps will you follow to solvethis problem? Whats a manager to do to avoid the

PERCEPTION of favoritism, which can be just as damaging asactual favoritism?

CASE ANALYSIS
To begin with this is the common problem of Workplace Favoritism. It'sa major topic in HR circles. But regardless of how little formal attentionit gets, this is an important issue that exists in nearly every workplace,large and small. While it's not something that gets addressed inmanagement meetings, it can have as much effect on a company asmost "high profile" management topics.Favoritism is part of human nature. No two people interact similarly toany other two, so it's impossible for all workplace relationships to be"equal". It's only natural to gravitate to people that you share commoninterests with, and with whom you have an easy rapport. And of course, there's nothing wrong with any of this, on the surface. Theproblems surface when one of three distinct things occurs: 1. When a good rapport and shared interests lead to a PERCEPTIONthat an employee is getting favored treatment from a manager 2. When a manager ACTUALLY PROVIDES unfair preferential treatmentfor one employee at the expense of others 3.

Nepotism. To begin with, Mr. Rajiv, through there isnt any logical fault on his side;He commits some silly errors that you would probably expect with acomputer engineer who hasnt exactly probed into the human side of the business. Even though neha is in fact a very bright employee and to befrank a front runner among her colleagues still Rajiv committedthe silly error in being too close to her and apparently not givingenough consideration of its impact on the psyche of the otheremployees. He was also a bit too rude to deal with adebayor, an employeewho was quite popular in the circles as one of the hardestworking employees. Even though rajiv was quite right inassessing the personality of adebayor that he wasnt a verydaring employee and that there was still time for him to develop

fully into the leadership mode that is required in the highlycompetitive IT sector .Instead Rajiv should have commented onthe positives and presented the whole thing in an amicablemanner. He also ignored the issue in the beginning allowing the rift todevelop.Clearly there has been a serious perception problem on the part of theemployees in that they had started to wrongly deduce that neha isgetting promoted due to favoritism. This is a big problem but not thatbig also if the management decides to follow some simple steps andunderstand some basic things about this wrong perception thing. There are many people in the workplace who are extremelysensitive, and are looking around every corner for perceivedslights and injustices. There are also many under-performers who look at other'srelationships, in an attempt to convince themselves that it'ssomething other than their own shortcomings that is preventingthem from getting ahead. Like in this example the clique of nitin,valsat, and karan shows a lot of characteristics of this behavior.People who perform well should be rewarded. And a singlemanagement style doesn't work equally well with all employees. Somepeople need more attention to fulfill their potential, while others excelwith less attention and more autonomy. Also it is the PERCEPTION of favoritism that does the damage. If there is actual favoritism, you canargue that management is just getting what they deserve. Here are some steps to avoid the problem to tackle theproblem initially:

 An open door policy is the right beginning. Further,communication channels have to be well-established and two-way flow of information is to be encouraged and maintained. A further step in the right direction would be to convey thereasoning of various managerial decisions through formal andmore informal communication systems for persons at the groundlevel to appreciate the managerial constraints and thinkingprocess. That would help employees strive for right perceptioneven when decisions are unexplained.

By experience, everyone is aware of the perception people havewhen a male boss frequently appreciates a particular femalestaff. One is keen in such cases to modify behavior and languagesuitably to avoid wrong perceptions.After that the management must take the following measures toensure that no such perception problems arise in the future. 1. The management should do everything within their powerto insure that advancement, perks, and compensation arebased strictly upon objective performance measures 2. they must Strive to treat everyone fairly, if not necessarilythe same 3. .they must Create an environment where any employeefeels comfortable discussing a perceived injustice withmanagementthis enables managers to nipmisconceptions in the bud 4. they should Practice an open door policythis alsocontributes to a culture of trust, which can sooth ruffledfeathers before hurt feelings can fester and turn a situationfar sourer 5. .the top management should also learn to Managepotential perceptions of favoritism proactivelyit's mucheasier to prevent the perception up front, than it is to "putout the fire" once it's ragingWhile a HR manager need not get bogged down with all possible andimaginative perceptions of people, his focus should be to establish anopen work environment and exercise control over the informationsystem

mechanics. A well-established and trusted system wouldinduce people to ask for reasons behind an action or a decision, than to jump to wrong perceptions .