Solution for Case Study 1-A

Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. What do you think went wrong? Which characteristics of group behaviour can you identify the case with? If you were in Rizwans position, what would you have done differently? If you were Rizwan, what would you do now?

Solution for Question 1. The Team Got Diverted from the main objectives of the Session, They were given the task to Design the Divider Tray, but they got Diverted and were forcing their own suggestion to redesign the handling procedure and to be written and Enforced. Solution to Question 2. Non-Storming; because they were supposed to take decision over the designing the divider tray. TASK FORCE; formal Group, roles are defined. Norms are Defined and assigned. They have a Cohesion in the Group and Structure is interdependent. Solution to Question 3. I would have forced the Team to follow the Decision of the Committee. Solution to Question 4. I would have asked the Team to follow the strict instruction of the Committee, as it might have affected my and their jobs as well.

Solution for Case Study 2

QUESTIONS (a) What kind of problem in the group process existed before teams were introduced? Explain the concept. Why did this exist? (b) What challenges had to be overcome for teams to operate effectively at Cutler Hammer? (c) What reasons do you attribute for resistance to the new concept of pods? Examine the same with reference to group behavior and the dynamic processes associated with it. (d) Draw out the lessons from this case in the form of strategies for implementation to help teams become more effective.

Solution to Question 1 Job Process was old and was not good. As it was highly customer oriented and the size of Company was increasing. No Control on Sales and it was becoming highly problematic to handle the staff, so even the customers were not getting happy. Solution to Question 2 We had to Improve everything from Supply chain, to production. And we had to improve even in After sales Service Proper Customer Relationship. Improvement has to be done in managing the workforce. There should be some cohesion between the two Groups. Solution to Question 3 Defined Roles Size and Structure Cohesion between two Sales Representative and Pods. Trained Profession Solution to Question 4. Motivation increased Proper Training Environmental education

Solution to case study-5

QUESTIONS 1. What are the advantages that Comfy Interiors had after creating its product-development team? 2. What was wrong with these teams? 3. Is the team approach worth the effort put to develop them at Comfy Interiors? Why or Why not? 4. Analyse the problems with reference to group formation and development processes.
Solution to Question 1. People Started Working as Team. People Started working hard, They become more task oriented. People were Screened properly before they were kept in a team. Solution to Question 2. The Problem with these Teams were the Thinking. The Team also had Clashes for Several months of Fighting and Bickering before Designing the new Product. Solution to Question 3 Yes it worth the Effort to put them in a team, because now theyll act as a Team, and the team which was formed, was the best, as they were screened very carefully before they were placed in team. And the best criteria was of a doer in the Team. Solution to Question 4 No Cohesion Interdependent, but wanted to work as independent. Status is very high. It was difficult to Screen the people with similar competency of DOERS

Solution to Case Study-4 Questions:

1. Does this case demonstrate the ineffectiveness of group decision-making? 2. How did group think affect the launch decision"? 3. Suggest some ways /strategy that could have helped in avoiding the problem discussed in the case? 4. Explain with reference to Social influence theories why this problem happened?

Solution to Question-1 Yes it Did Show, as there was a problem of Group-thinking and Team Sprit. As they were looking forward to complete the task and not on its consequences. Solution to Question 2 Group think affect the launch Decision, because few alternatives were analysed. Solution to Question 3 Proper Communication, and Group Discussion, with avoiding assumptions. And even if there is some. Then proper discussion is needed over them, by seeking proper expert Guidance. And by avoiding highly selective in gathering Data. Solution to Question 4 It happened because of Examining only few Alternatives. Due to exercising direct pressure on others. and because they did not asked the experts for their views.