Case of the Changing Cage

OB-II Assignment
Group 2

Group Members:
1) UH20001 – Aakarshan Raj
2) UH20007 – Bibek Anand Sahu
3) UH20012 – Anuja Rajiv Wadnerkar
4) UH20027 – Himani Tandon
5) UH200 - Oindrilla Banerjee
6) UH200 - Suman Sourav
7) UH20059 – Urvashi Baral

1. What is your understanding of the following for the group that worked in the 
cage? 
 Norms that developed

Before shifting:
1) Express or explicit norms –
a) The Unit Area was supposed to be kept very private, with locks on both doors at
all times.
b) People from outside were not to be allowed in unless they had their names on a
special list.
c) Messengers & peons had to use the buzzer on the corridor door for service, and
could not be invited in.
d) Door along the steel mesh was to be used only for departmental business.

2) Implied –
a) To let the boxes pile up and not send them to any appropriate place.
The common goal was to ensure they were hidden from the view of their Section
Head, and each member had to contribute to this goal.
b) To stand at the door leading to the corridor and talk to messengers without
letting them in. This was the commonly accepted way of interacting with
outsiders.
c) To regularly slip out and get afternoon snacks. This was accepted and
encouraged as something that set them apart from the rest of the Section, but at
the same time they had to keep it discreet.
d) To participate in a game of rubber band ‘sniping’ when bored. This increased
their bonding and reinforced the feeling of them being a group.
After shifting to new location –
1) Express –
a) The norm was to ensure visibility of workers and the work they were doing.
b) New norm was to not talk to outsiders anymore, or even amongst themselves,
unless necessary.
c) Keeping the work environment tidy, and desks to be cleared at the end of each
day
d) No more snacking in the afternoon
e) 1 person to get snacks for everyone else

2) Implicit –
a) Disapproving of Mr. Sharma and his way of working. This included ridiculing him
as a group, behind his back, and sneering at the way he ran things.
b) Obstructing the flow of work, social loafing, and disrupting the pace of the work.
This was done as a covert way of retaliating against the superior officer who was
imposing hitherto unknown restrictions on them
c) Enthusiastic participation in games of rubber band sniping during work hours to
waste time, and to do something that would obviously be severely disapproved
of
d) Taking work lightly and not meeting deadlines, as well as not filing correctly at
the required time.

 Cohesiveness of the group

From the very start, the nature of their work and the environment that they
operated in played a huge role in binding the workers together. They had to rely on
one another to get a sizeable amount of work done each day, and their location
meant that there wasn’t much scope for interaction with people from outside the
group, such as the other workers of the company enjoyed. Whatever little was
possible, was done clandestinely.
Thus, all of these factors helped the team become very cohesive and task-oriented
at the same time.
They came together to work hard, and to cover one another when they set about
flouting the department rules (albeit good-naturedly).

Later, after their location and work environment was changed, the cohesiveness
continued but their dedication to their tasks plummeted.
They banded together to figure out new ways of doing things, and in begrudging the
new rules, the increased scrutiny and the control over their daily work patterns.
 However, this cohesiveness did not contribute to increasing their work satisfaction
or drive to complete their goals.

 Productivity or Performance

Earlier, despite the heavy workload and urgency of their tasks, the workers were on
their toes and were very productive. Their performance was up to the mark, and
there was no indication of any room for complaints.
With a healthy combination of work and leisure, the workers could easily meet
deadlines and keep the department running seamlessly.

However, after their location was changed and the conditions of their work were so
greatly varied, there was a sharp drop in the team’s productivity and performance.
They lost all motivation to complete their tasks on time, and instead found this as a
way of rebelling against what they saw as arbitrary and complete control.
This reflected in the review of the month’s work that Mrs. Shetty undertook, and
the team’s declining performance was starkly evident, much to Shetty’s dismay.

 Member Satisfaction

Earlier, despite the heavy workload, the members seemed satisfied with their job,
and even seemed to take pleasure in their unique working conditions. They had
managed to find loopholes and ways to circumvent their problems, and had a
healthy mix of work pressure and entertainment (such as games) to keep them
motivated and satisfied.

This dropped significantly after their move, when they started feeling
claustrophobic, and restricted. They lost all the special privileges they had carved
out for themselves, and this made them agitated and unhappy with their situation.
Their satisfaction levels dropped, and productivity soon followed suit.

Q2. How did these change over time? What was the emergent behaviour and its
consequences?

Q3. What factors within the group or in the context had an impact and led to the emergent
behaviour?
A: (himani’s SS – performance)

Q4. What should Mr. Sharma do now? Why? What are likely consequences?
The management’s decision to relocate the unit also imposed various negative effects in the
unit and in the company as a whole. Due to the unwanted relocation, processes such as
checking, filing and organizing checks were affected.
Maslow
Better performance leading to customer satisfaction
Stress and pressure from work affected the worker’s ethical behaviour. This was shown by
the increased cases of rubber band snipping and disrespect to the section head.
Because of these behaviors, the performance of the workers was affected. Rubber snipping
increased unproductive time and these resulted to decreased performance level.
The voucher-filing unit’s performance deteriorated due to the several causes rooted from
the management’s careless decision.
Problem Resolution – From Oindrilla’s link. (Ensure no plagiarism)