CASE STUDY ON GROUP BEHAVIOUR

Hindustan Lever Research Centre (HLRC) was set up in the year 1967 at Mumbai. At
that time the primary challenge was to find suitable alternatives to the edible oils and fats
that were being used as raw materials for soaps. Later, import substitution and export
obligations directed the focus towards non-edible oil seeds, infant foods, perfumery
chemicals, 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 through
lateral 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 one
of the six global R&D Centers of Unilever with the creation of Unilever Research India
in Bangalore in 1997.

At Bangalore R&D center, a team of 10 scientists were appointed for a project on

‘shampoo’ line. Suranjan Sircar heading the team as Principal Research Scientist with the
support of Vikas Pawar, Aparna Damle, Jaideep Chatterjee, Amitava Pramanik as
Research Scientists. Suresh Jayaraman & Punam Bandyopadhyay were Research
Associates.

Vikas Pawar came up with an idea of pet shampoos during brainstorming with the team.
“Hey, why don’t we target the pet care segment because in India, pet industry is being
seriously looked at as a growing industry. I had been working on this concept for a few
weeks & have done some initial research as well”, said Vikas. “I think we should just
focus 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. “Oh
that’s 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 that
creating brand specific shampoos would not be a profitable innovation thus, no point
concentrating efforts on that. With this in mind he put his point forward but couldn’t
gather consensus.
After the discussion, Jaideep & Amitava being friends to Vikas, consoled him & showed
confidence in his plan & thoughts. “We understand what you are going through. The idea
was yours & Aparna took all your credit. Don’t worry we are with you & be careful from
next time.”
Nevertheless, in the meeting Aparna presented her proposal for the idea mentioning
requirements & 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 along
with deadlines.
Immediately after the presentation Jaideep & Amitava approached Aparna & eulogized
her 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 was
not 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 Vikas
observed him most of the times in the recreation room, so he asked him “Hi, so what’s
the progress in chemical research so far?” Suresh replied that he had done whatever he
was 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 what’s happening in the team. I have worked for
20 years in this industry & from my experience I know what to do & when to do”, he
retorted back.

Finally the project got completed 4 months after deadline. Vikas went back to the lab;
sitting & wondering at the flaws in the group.

Q1 Analyze group behavior of the team. Study the informal & formal groups
In this case.
Q2 Point out flaws in the group & recommend solutions to overcome them.

Prepared By: Nikhil Kapoor (4610)

Tanvi Rohatgi (4606)
BBS 1 A
 Group Behavior
Case Study Analysis

The general picture that emerges out of the aforementioned case is that of confusion, a
clear lack of leadership and one that is filled with group politics. It is worsened by the
general negative attitude among the members and on a whole a lack of clear cut
camaraderie among the whole members that really takes away a good bit of performance
among the members.
Some observations:
• With the given information, vikas as a person deserves special mention for he is
the one who seems to have a holistic personality and a right kind of employee to
guide the organization to the next level of success. He is the one employee who in
my opinion seems to have the kind of constructive thinking for the sake of the
organization as well as doing full justice to his job. He is honest, hardworking and
apparently one who is on the lookout for new ideas as he was the one who came
up with one during the brainstorming session and also he had done some research
on his own behalf regarding the same.

• Aparna as a new member of the team appears to be a very ambitious, intelligent

girl 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 view
of what is to be done it was aparna who was quick to grab the opportunity and
narrow the broad idea into a more narrow and specific direction .thus she seems to
convey a very positive and a strong urge to perform on the job. Yet it is also clear
that she doesn’t seem to be having a regard for her colleagues as it was apparent
that almost ‘stole’ the vikas’s idea and took the full credit to her name even
without sharing the honors with vikas.She seems to be a very high on the Mach
scale.

• Jaideep and amitava appears to share good relationship between them as a good
clique. they are very positive minded people, it is clear from the fact that they
really 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 fellow
workers, something that is very important.
Among the formal groups it is very clear that there is a proper structure in the
organization with Suranjan Sircar heading the team as Principal Research Scientist with
the support of Vikas Pawar, Aparna Damle, Jaideep Chatterjee, and Amitava Pramanik as
Research Scientists. Suresh Jayaraman & Punam Bandyopadhyay are Research
Associates.

The formal group of research scientists appears to be a very able team as they are able to
resolve 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, jaideep
and amitava. Though this informal group is against Aparna in taking away all the credit
from 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 pretty

lethargically; as is seen by the fact that Punam didn’t meet her deadlines and
Suresh spent most of his time in recreation.
 Moreover, the group leader/ head Suranjan Circar is too haughty to accept
any suggestions from his subordinates.
 In the informal group, there is the dissatisfaction among Vikas and his friends
for Vikas’ credit being snatched away by Aparna.
 However, it is highly appreciable of Vikas that he lays aside his ego and
works with full dedication for the better of the group.
 The team of research associates of punam and Suresh seems to lack the urge
and capabilities to work at the acceptable standards.

Thus, though there clearly exists an informal group having a grudge against the
formal group, it is observed that the two never really clash. As a result, the delay in
the group’s task completion could not attributed to the existence of an informal group
working against it but is fully because of the wrong attitude of the group members
towards their work.

Flaws in the team and their solutions

 Lack of seriousness-- The first flaw that one can clearly see in the group is
that 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 them
soon after; as could well be seen in the cases of Punam and Suresh. This can
be rectified by having strong authority and controlling measures in the
team and make it the norm to follow.
 Lack of commitment-- The members do not seem to be committed enough
towards their work. There could be two reasons for it: either the members are
not adequately motivated or they are not serious enough, i.e., the first point
itself. Here is very important that the leader follow the appropriate
motivational concepts and methods to get his team to perform at their
level best. May be the job at hand may not be challenging enough for
some. In that case the job profile has to be divided with close care and
matched with the ability and needs of the employees.

 There is a clear lack of able leadership skills in the team. It is apparent that
the team leader Mr. Suranjan circar doesn’t seem to have the same
commitment level or he is having a big ego problem. It is evident from the
fact that when vikas pointed out the flaws in the team and sought an action
against them, the leader circar instead got miffed and retorted angrily. This
clearly was a communication to vikas that as a leader he is aware of what is
to be done and he doesn’t need a lesson in that. Clearly in a marketing
research agency you need to have a flexible and participative form of
leadership and Mr. circar needs to change his approach quickly
otherwise the group results will continue to be bad.

 In a job like this where the team effort is more important and people
concentrate 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 the
members. Here aparna appears to be too self centered to think about her co
workers which can in the long run lead to difficulties. Thus it is job of the
leader to council aparna and make sure that she understands and
appreciates the advantages of being a good team member.

 It is a rarity that there are loyal and hardworking employees like vikas who
have 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 monetary
incentives are as important as monetary benefits. Therefore recognizing
the talent the management should really appreciate and keep him happy
so that they can get the optimum contribution from him.
PERCEPTION CASE STUDY
Mr. K.P Bakophaid,69, a high profile investor who during his lifetime
had accumulated millions in investments, particularly in the Microsoft
shares in the 80s and then in a repeat of his talent to spot the gold
brought Google shares cheap at $1 a share with now the shares
quoting $563\share and his long time friend Mr. j k sinha,65 just retired
CEO of the famed PELIANCE group had been for a while contemplating
for a move to establish a start up in IT sector as both the gentlemen
were very bullish about the sector in the Indian space.

Their thoughts were put down to work as with favorable developments

at the macro economic level both pledged their funds together to start
a IT start up MACROHARD INDIA LTD, a BPO firm having primary
applications in the back office jobs of banking and investment banking
sector of the US and EUROPE.

With this they appointed Mr. Rajiv Negad, 39 an IIM-A pass out. He had
till that time established himself as an expert in system analysis with a
prime acumen of business networks having earlier worked with
Goldman sacs in its Hong Kong division. He jumped at the opportunity
to be the CEO of the start up.

I YEAR LATER

MACROHARD had notched up a reasonable success in its limited space

and were looking like they were heading in the right directions.

In the mean time they hired Ms Neha Kakkar , an attractive 25 year old
who was also like the CEO, a pass out of IIM-A .She was a hard working
employee and a really bright prospect who had the right ideas and
confidence. Also her most important asset was her ability to gel with
her colleges well.

Over time there developed good professional repot between Mr. Rajiv
and neha as it was evident with the fact that Mr. Rajiv was really
impressed with the work ethics of his new employee. In the company
there also worked adebayour, a hard working employee. Originally
from 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 the
next level with her idea of venturing into the credit card processing in
the 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 to
discuss with Rajiv, her boss, for which he asked her to come to the
canteen to discuss this issue over a cup of coffee.
Apparently this discussion now happened quite frequently and because
the issue was a bit negative with the news of falling profits and
competitors, Rajiv asked neha not to discuss it now with her coworkers
as he felt it might have negative repercussions.3 weeks into this
discussion neha was again promoted as there was an urgent need to
do it .

This wasn’t taken well by her co workers who thought that she was
rather using her good looks in making Rajiv do as she wished. This was
apparently being discussed and spread around as rumors by 3 people
in particular nitin, venkat, and karan who were spreading all sorts of
rumors around. There was this further issue that adebayor an equally
hard working candidate wasn’t promoted when neha was. In this
regard adebayour was apparently miffed and sought an explanation
from rajiv who responded that he didn’t had that charisma and
forward looking skills and therefore he will have to wait a little bit more
time for his promotion. But in this regard an argument ensured
between the two, the news of which spread around the workplace.

There was now an open talk that Rajiv was showing favoritism toward
neha and everyone wasn’t being treated well. Initially Rajiv ignored this
talk. Being a proud manager who thought that since he was not
actually doing anything wrong, that should be enough—people will
recognize it. Or since he wasn’t actually guilty, he believed that he just
doesn’t need to defend himself further. Lastly, he also thought that
since he was the boss people will anyway come to respect his
decisions.

But then in the mean time situations worsened. There was a gradual
loss of productivity. Resentment built quickly with favoritism being
suspected. Resentment quickly become bitterness and bitterness lead
to all sorts of behavior which created problems for company.

Rajiv now really disturbed with the recent developments in the

company, quickly sought advice from his HR manager Mr. Sachin
tendulkar to get the situation back to normal as quickly as possible as
In the highly competitive IT industry he didn’t want his company to
miss out on potential opportunities just because of a simple perception
problem.

As a HR manager what advice and steps will you follow to solve

this problem? What’s a manager to do to avoid the
PERCEPTION of favoritism, which can be just as damaging as
actual favoritism?

CASE ANALYSIS

To begin with this is the common problem of Workplace Favoritism. It's

a major topic in HR circles. But regardless of how little formal attention
it gets, this is an important issue that exists in nearly every workplace,
large and small. While it's not something that gets addressed in
management meetings, it can have as much effect on a company as
most "high profile" management topics.

Favoritism is part of human nature. No two people interact similarly to

any other two, so it's impossible for all workplace relationships to be
"equal". It's only natural to gravitate to people that you share common
interests with, and with whom you have an easy rapport. And of
course, there's nothing wrong with any of this, on the surface. The
problems surface when one of three distinct things occurs:

1. When a good rapport and shared interests lead to a PERCEPTION

that an employee is getting favored treatment from a manager
2. When a manager ACTUALLY PROVIDES unfair preferential treatment
for one employee at the expense of others
3. Nepotism.

To begin with, Mr. Rajiv, through there isn’t any logical fault on his side;
He commits some silly errors that you would probably expect with a
computer engineer who hasn’t exactly probed into the human side of
the business.

• Even though neha is in fact a very bright employee and to be

frank a front runner among her colleagues still Rajiv committed
the silly error in being too close to her and apparently not giving
enough consideration of its impact on the psyche of the other
employees.

• He was also a bit too rude to deal with adebayor, an employee

who was quite popular in the circles as one of the hardest
working employees. Even though rajiv was quite right in
assessing the personality of adebayor that he wasn’t a very
daring employee and that there was still time for him to develop
 fully into the leadership mode that is required in the highly
competitive IT sector .Instead Rajiv should have commented on
the positives and presented the whole thing in an amicable
manner.

• He also ignored the issue in the beginning allowing the rift to

develop.

Clearly there has been a serious perception problem on the part of the
employees in that they had started to wrongly deduce that neha is
getting promoted due to favoritism. This is a big problem but not that
big also if the management decides to follow some simple steps and
understand some basic things about this wrong perception thing.

• There are many people in the workplace who are extremely

sensitive, and are looking around every corner for perceived
slights and injustices.

• There are also many under-performers who look at other's

relationships, in an attempt to convince themselves that it's
something other than their own shortcomings that is preventing
them 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 single

management style doesn't work equally well with all employees. Some
people need more attention to fulfill their potential, while others excel
with less attention and more autonomy. Also it is the PERCEPTION of
favoritism that does the damage. If there is actual favoritism, you can
argue that management is just getting what they deserve.

Here are some steps to avoid the problem to tackle the

problem 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 the
reasoning of various managerial decisions through formal and
more informal communication systems for persons at the ground
level to appreciate the managerial constraints and thinking
process. That would help employees strive for right perception
even when decisions are unexplained.
 • By experience, everyone is aware of the perception people have
when a male boss frequently appreciates a particular female
staff. One is keen in such cases to modify behavior and language
suitably to avoid wrong perceptions.

After that the management must take the following measures to

ensure that no such perception problems arise in the future.

1. The management should do everything within their power

to insure that advancement, perks, and compensation are
based strictly upon objective performance measures
2. they must Strive to treat everyone fairly, if not necessarily
the same
3. .they must Create an environment where any employee
feels comfortable discussing a perceived injustice with
management—this enables managers to nip
misconceptions in the bud
4. they should Practice an open door policy—this also
contributes to a culture of trust, which can sooth ruffled
feathers before hurt feelings can fester and turn a situation
far sourer
5. .the top management should also learn to Manage
potential perceptions of favoritism proactively—it's much
easier to prevent the perception up front, than it is to "put
out the fire" once it's raging

While a HR manager need not get bogged down with all possible and
imaginative perceptions of people, his focus should be to establish an
open work environment and exercise control over the information
system mechanics. A well-established and trusted system would
induce people to ask for reasons behind an action or a decision, than to
jump to wrong perceptions.
Case study
Vineeth Vijayan
BBS 1 A
Roll no. 4644

Rashid kapoor, 26 was born to Mr. Saurab kapoor, a distinguished lawyer and Mrs.
Savina kapoor, senior bank executive at HDFC. Throughout his childhood Rashid was
trained and brought up by his parents in a manner that would ensure that Rashid gets
groomed to be a successful man. He had a great academic record, was good at public
speaking and a district level tennis player. He came from a demanding background where
unconditional approval was withheld. Getting 90%, for example did not meet with
admiration from parents. The achievement was typically up with the message “you can
do better”.

He followed up his good work to get himself enrolled into the prestigious IIT, Delhi and
then after a two year work experience got selected into the prestigious Harvard business
school. After graduating from there with highest honors he rapidly moved up the
corporate ladder at a large advertising firm, raking up promotions and responsibilities all
along the way. He was recognized by everyone in the firm as one of the talented and
gifted employees. His boss reacted accordingly and paid him a generous pay package.
Here he pushed himself to the limits to ensure that his task has been completed in the best
possible way. He was fiercely ambitious, wildly capable, and intelligent.

However 2 years into the job the performance levels of Rashid had come down. It was
not a drastic change in quality but it was there for his boss Mr. Ravikant shukla to see.
Despite his veneer of self satisfaction, smugness and even bluster he was starting to feel a
lack of confidence.
He was thus a concerned man and knew something must be done quickly to restore the
performance of his star employee. Also there were also rumors of Rashid’s tiffs with his
same level colleges. Also Rashid have secretly started to look for another job.
Rashid’s performance of late and his apparent lack of “team spirit” had got people talking
that he is going to be fired.
Mr. Ravikant shukla thus was in a big dilemma now. Already in a highly competitive
advertising industry there was an obvious crunch of talented skilled people and to lose an
employee of the caliber of Rashid to the competitors was not at all a situation he wanted
to face. What was he supposed to do with Rashid to ensure that he remains with his
company and perform to his best of abilities for the success of the firm?

ANALYSIS &SOLUTION
The problem faced by Mr. Ravikant shukla is not a isolated problem but rather a problem
that affects most of the companies in all the sectors.
The good news for bosses coping with complicated a players is that managing superstars
is not that difficult.thebiggest challenge is simply recognizing that these driven stars have
these hidden vulnerabilities. Once you’ve understood their unexpected wasknesses
andneeds you can apply some straight forward guidelines and techniques to help them
pvercome their limitations.

Here are certain facts and steps Mr. Ravikant shukla can look into to solve his problem
and turn his high performers into even more effective stars.

These high performers mostly come from very demanding childhood like in the case of
Rashid. These individuals end up with extra ordinarily punishing superegos. At first the
pressure comes from outside authority figures; later A players impose it on themselves
and on others. They end up pushing themselves to the extremes producing more and
better work in every endeavor they undertake. They also become highly attentive to the
language of the person judging them precisely because they spent their childhoods
looking intently for clues about whether or not they had fulfilled parental expectations.
Thus they even make a distinction between A+ and A++ evaluation.
It is thus the duty of the senior to see that he identifies this trait in his high performing
employees and thus reward and communicate the same to them in a manner befitting the
situation. Only when the boss starts to help his stars address their inflated senses of
superiority can they begin to deal with underlying issues of poor self worth. As a manager
the onus falls on the boss to personalize the praise if it is to be effective.i.e the boss must
know not only when but what to honor when considering the star’s spectacular
performance. You must celebrate the unique competence and aspirations that the a player
values in himself and you must admire him in away that he can appreciate.

Their career trajectory is such that they are constantly put in business settings that
demand social skills that they may not be prepared to handle. If they are not able to cope
with that for long then they may get frustrated, as such A players like Rashid should be
his boss’s second chair whenever he meets with customers or clients. That will allow him
to observe the manner in which professional deals are taken place and thus he stands to
gain invaluable skills and also develops strong loyalty towards his boss.

These a players also suffer from burnout born of midcareer boredom. It is because they
are used to that rapid rise in thefirm ,pay going up increased incentives that when it all
reaches a slowdown they get frustrated.for a players accustomed to action,andrewards
this long backstretch is fraught with danger .the only answer to this dilemma is to provide
these individuals with challenges.they will approach such growth opportunities with
passion.

One of the biggest problems of a plauers is their inavility to set boundaries for
themselves.these insecure over achievers typically exceed expectations because they are
prepared to operate outside their comfort zones in their effort to attain perfection and win
recognition.
Thus it is the responsibility of the boss to understand this inability of their star performers
and council them. A good way to set boundaries is to allow you’re a players to help you
build work groups,structure a project or tailor a business plan.and then ask them how
they would like to be rewarded for completing those subtasks.

Bosses must create an environment where top performers have to cooperate with others
to achieve their goals. That will certainly mean building the notion of shared effort into
an a player’s performance measures.for these individuals the more effective means of
getting them to play alongmay be to repeatedly highlight the failures of other superstars
who failed to understand the power of team efforts.

Then there is also the method of co-opting followed mostly in football.

Here the boss can ask these A players to mentor the other less successful employees,in a
careful and controlled manner so that there is no ego clashes among them. The rationale
behind this idea is that when the a players are asked to perform these steps they take it as
a signal that they are being groomed to take up a higher position in the future. This alone
acts as a major ego boost to them and they become more loyal as well as more supportive
to the team goals, further this also offers a opportunity to the lesser employees to devolep
themselves and thus this leds to all round gain to the organization.