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 non-
edible 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 on‘shampoo’ 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 don’t 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. “Ohthat’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 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 couldn’tgather 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. Don’t
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 what’sthe 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 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”, 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 doesn’t
seem to be having a regard for her colleagues as it was apparentthat almost ‘stole’ the vikas’s 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 didn’t 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 group’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 wasn’t 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 wasn’t promoted
when neha was. In thisregard adebayour was apparently miffed and sought an explanationfrom rajiv
who responded that he didn’t 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 wasn’t being treated well. Initially Rajiv ignored thistalk. Being a
proud manager who thought that since he was notactually doing anything wrong, that should be
enough—people willrecognize it. Or since he wasn’t actually guilty, he believed that he justdoesn’t 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 didn’t 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? What’s 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 isn’t any logical fault on his side;He commits some
silly errors that you would probably expect with acomputer 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 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 wasn’t 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 withmanagement—this enables managers to nipmisconceptions in the bud

4.

they should Practice an open door policy—this 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 proactively—it'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