a case study of organizational behavior
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
1/10
A Case Study of Organizational Behavior:Conflict Management
To create a footprint in the telecommunication Business & Operation Support System (BSS andOSS) a well known fortune 500 company, Olite (name changed) , acquired a leading software
company in the billing and revenue management sector named PTL (name changed) in the year
2004. Olite is a multinational company with its headquarters in USA.
This acquisition was consolidated at Olite, under the Telecommunication Business Unit (TBU).
To utilize the cost advantage and the technical expertise, Olite started its TBU division activities
at the India development center (IDC). Olite also maintained a group (here after referred to as
HQ team) at its headquarters, which focused on R & D activities and for supporting a few key
customers. Most of the employees who were part of TBU division came from PTL software. Themain responsibilities of the IDC group were to provide support to the existing customers and
provide minor enhancement to the existing product.
This case study discusses the growth of the TBUs engineering division at IDC and the
challenges it faced while dealing with the needs of the employees, aspirations of its leaders and
the effects and challenges it created to the group at its HQ division and the HQ group heads
reaction to it.
As part of this case study we will try to focus and understand following aspects:
Personality type
Conflict between individuals
Organizational politicsDivide and Conquer
Description of the Case:
This is a case study of the Engineering (Product Development) group of the TBU division. The
TBUs engineering group was organized in a simple hierarchical structure as shown in Figure 1.
Michel (VP)
Suraj (Director)
Ashok (Director)
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
2/10
Mahesh (Senior Director)
Figure 1: TBU team hierarchy
The entire engineering division at IDC was lead by the directors, Ashok and Suraj. Mahesh was
leading the R & D group at HQ. Both Ashok and Suraj had independent teams. Ashok andSurajs teams worked on customer support activities and were responsible for addressing
product issues and implementing minor enhancements of the product. Under their leadership,
these groups delivered many customer success stories and created a good impression and
were viewed as an asset to the organization. Both the directors were leading the customer
support activities. As the IDC group achieved more and more success, the aspiration of the
directors started to change. Both the directors started showing intent to lead the entire IDC
engineering division. Ashok was very aggressive and ambitious. He was action-oriented and
forward thinking. While Suraj kept to his duties and focused on the day to day customer issues,
however, he also showed intent to lead the division.
As the team in IDC successfully managed the customer support activity, some of their key
engineers also expressed a desire to work on R & D activities. They wanted a break from the
routine work. Ashok encouraged the team to express their views on the type of work they would
like to do in the future and promised to explore the feasibility of these ideas.
During this time, the entire customer support activity was shifted to the IDC center and the team
in HQ focused solely on R& D activities. As the IDC organization grew (in terms of domain
expertise, strength, and excellence), there were concern from the HQ division (Maheshs team)about their role and future. Meanwhile, the recession in USA had also impacted the IT job
market and job security was a major worrying factor for the HQ team.
Creating new group:
To take the IDC organization on a further growth path, during one of the Staff meeting , Ashok
proposed to create a focused group(consisting of key engineers from Ashok and Surajs group)
within the organization (under his leadership) to work on new product development and to
collaborate with the R& D division in HQ. This proposal shocked Suraj as Ashok had never
discussed this idea with him and he felt let down. Suraj opposed this idea. On hearing the
proposal from Ashok, Mahesh started worrying about the R & D team located at HQ. The HQ
team expressed the concern that they may lose their jobs once the R & D work is offloaded to
IDC. He also started worrying about his position in the organization as he knew Ashok was a
very aggressive leader and had a good rapport within organization. Michel promised to look into
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
3/10
this idea and promised to provide his views on it soon. Michel relied on Maheshs inputs to
make decisions related to the engineering division, as he was a new to the division.
Game Changes-Divide and Conquer:
In the meanwhile, problems started cropping up between the groups headed by Ashok and
Suraj. Ashok tried to convince Suraj about the benefits of new group but Suraj has different
ideas. Suraj suggested that, instead of forming new group (consisting of key engineers from
Ashok and Surajs group), we should utilize part of every engineers time to do the R & D activity.
Talks about starting a focus group became a conflicting point between Ashok and Suraj. Even
on common issues, they had different views. This difference became quite public during team
meetings. This started affecting the team morale and the day to day activities of the IDC group.
Michel kept on delaying the decision (on suggestion from Mahesh) on the new group formationat IDC. This uncertainty about the new group formation and the differences between the IDC
directors was taking toll on the productivity of the teams and eventually on customer
satisfaction. He always took care of his team members very well. Along with the formation of the
new group, he had proposed better benefits and flexibility to his team members to motivate
them.
Ashok frequently reminded the higher management about the new group formation and the
difficulties he was having in co-coordinating with Suraj. The management kept on delaying the
decision and eventually Ashok resigned from the company. As Surajs performance was not upto the mark, the upper management decided to terminate his employment. The sudden
departure of both the directors created huge gap in the leadership of the IDC organization. Most
of the team started worrying about the future of the group and some of the experienced
engineers left the company.
During this period, Mahesh reached out to a few key engineers at IDC and assured them job
opportunities at HQs R& D team. The attrition level went up to 60% at IDC center. This affected
the customer support activity. Sensing an opportunity, Mahesh made a pitch to the higher
management that, with current capacity and expertise at IDC, the division can no longer handle
the support activities and the HQ team needs to pitch in to complete this work. Finally, the upper
management agreed and the critical customer support activity was moved to the HQ division.
The job security concern of the HQ division vanished as they started playing a key role in
support as well as in R & D activities. At the end of all this, the IDC division was functioning in a
lesser role and had hired a new leadership team.
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
4/10
Analysis:
Lets analyze the above case in terms of conflict, OB politics and Personality type.
ConflictConflict can occur between individuals or groups and across organizations as people compete.
Some principal causes of conflicts are:
Communication failure
Personality conflict
Value differences
Goal differences
Methodological differences
Substandard performance
Lack of cooperation
Differences regarding authority
Differences regarding responsibility
Competition over resources Non-compliance with rules
Here in the above case, the conflict between Ashok and Suraj can be categorized as
interpersonal conflicts. Interpersonal conflicts can arise due to personality clashes, different set
of values, lack of trust, organizational change, and threat to status.
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
5/10
The main reason for this conflict was the changes suggested to the organization (Organizational
change) by Ashok. Suraj had different views on the organizational structure changes, the routes
to take and their likely success, the resources to be used, and the probable outcomes.
Scarcity of resources can also bring about conflict, as all managers within an organization seek
to secure for themselves the scarce resources required for survival. Each manager acts out of
self interest. In order to secure these scarce resources, a group may block another groups
access to the resources.
Also, individuals give importance to their social ranking in a group. When an individuals social
ranking is threatened, face saving becomes a powerful driving force as the person struggles to
maintain the desired image. Conflict may arise between the threatened individual and the
person who created a threat to the status.
Every continuing relationship requires some degree of trust-the capacity to depend on eachother's word and actions. Trust opens up boundaries, provides opportunities in which to act; and
enriches the entire social fabric of an organization. Here Suraj was taken aback by the sudden
proposal of Ashok about creating a new group and he lost trust in Ashok.
Organizational politics -Divide and Conquer
Organizational politics can be described as self-serving and manipulative behavior of individuals
and groups to promote their self interests at the expense of others, and some times even
organizational goals as well. Organizational politics in a company manifests itself through the
struggle for resources, personal conflicts, competition for power and leadership and tactical
influence executed by individuals and groups to attain power, building personal stature,
controlling access to information, not revealing real intents, building coalitions etc.
While most leaders try to achieve organizational unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain
control, or to elevate performance by fostering competition. As per Rick Brenners article
(Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer), the leaders use following tactics /forms to
divide-and-conquer at the work place.
The three-legged race
Some supervisors assign responsibility jointly to two people who are already at odds. This tactic
can be a simple error, or even a misguided attempt to "give them a chance to work things out,"
but often its purpose is to keep the warriors in conflict, to protect the supervisor.
Delaying the decision
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
6/10
When subordinates contend for the same promotion or for some other desirable assignment,
some supervisors delay their decisions, on the theory that competition creates superior
performance.
Although performance might improve before the decision, this tactic can damage relationships
permanently. And that could depress the performance permanently after the decision for the
winner, for the loser, and for the entire group.
Delegating for conflict
Delegating authority generally enhances effectiveness, but some managers delegate to create
conflict by delegating different responsibilities to two people, in such a way that they must
cooperate to succeed. Since neither one is fully responsible, the delegator is free to play one
against the other.
This tactic damages relationships and depresses organizational performance. Costs are high
and repairs difficult, because they involve both reorganization and replacing people
Lying
One approach to dividing an alliance, or to keeping trouble alive, is to tell lies to one or both
parties. Lies either of omission or commission can create the impression that one party
threatens the other.
Maintaining differences
When managers have promised to retain employees in mergers or acquisitions, keeping
organizational elements intact can be a divide-and-conquer tactic. Managers can then
systematically discriminate in allocating resources and opportunities. A typical goal might be to
drive up voluntary turnover in acquired units.
Indirect subversion of the promise to retain employees is still subversion. This tactic is unethical,
and therefore risky. If the promise to retain was sincere, subverting it could subvert a key
strategy of the combination.
In this case study, to protect his self interest and interest of his group, Mahesh influenced Michel
to use Delaying the decision tactics. As the decision was deferred, it added to the frustration of
Ashok and eventually he took the extreme step and resigned from company. Although, Mahesh
was successful in his goals, his methodology is questionable.
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that, because of time and pressure, leader
establishes a special relationship with small group of their followers. These individuals make up
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
7/10
the in-group; they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leaders attention and are
more likely to receive more privileges. Here Michels behavior complies with this theory as he
relied on Maheshs suggestion to make the decision. In our view, this may not be good for an
organization in the long term as it does not provide fair opportunities to the out-group as the
leaders have only a formal relation with the out-group.
Personality types
In this section we talk about different personality types:
MBTI Types:
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung developed a theory early in the 20th century to describe basic
individual preferences and similarities and differences between people. Main postulate of the
theory is that people have inborn behavioral tendencies and preferences.
Jungs theory is important but inaccessible to the general popu lation. Isabel Myers and
Katherine Briggs (mother-daughter team) expanded on Jungs work by developing an
instrument to help people identify their preferences.
The MBTI tool is an indicator of the personality type (i.e. innate preferences) that has proven to
be remarkably reliable and valid. It represents the result of over 50 years of research and is
used globally in both education and corporate settings.
Extraversion Introversion
E - I Dichotomy
Where do you prefer to focus your attention and get your energy?
Sensing Intuition
S - N Dichotomy
How do you prefer to take in information?
Thinking Feeling
T - F Dichotomy
How do you make decisions?
Judging Perceiving
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
8/10
J - P Dichotomy
How do you deal with the outer world?
In the above case, Ashok was a natural leader and organization builder. He conceptualizes and
theorizes readily and translates possibilities into plans to achieve long-term objectives. He is astrategic visionary and adept at planning for the future needs of the people and organization.
But he made decisions too quickly without understanding the alternatives or exploring other
possibilities. This behavior may be viewed as dictatorial. He failed to factor in to his plans the
needs of others for support. He can be categorized as ENTJ Personality Type.
While Suraj showed strong sense of responsibility and great loyalty to the organization, he
generally worked alone and showed willingness to work in a team whenever it was necessary.
The team viewed him as calm, serious, and of a reserved personality. However, when creating
a group was proposed, he became rigid and critical about others and rushed into prematurejudgment without considering others view points. He can be categorizes as ISFJ Personality
Type.
Authors view on the case study:
Based on the description of the case, in our view, Ashok had following objectives when he
suggested creating the new group:
Provide opportunity to his team members to participate in R& D activities.
Strengthen the contribution of the IDC division to the TBU, to start playing a significant role in
the R & D activity, and start driving the engineering decisions from IDC.
Use this opportunity to strengthen his grasp on the organization and eventually lead the entire
IDC division.
And Suraj opposed this idea, as he was skeptical about:
Creating a focused group may lead to a division between the groups. And as R & D is the
preferred activity (than customer support/maintenance), engineers who will not be part of R & D
group may get de-motivated.
Also, he was worried about losing his key team members to R & D group and eventually, his
grasp on the team. His teams success was mainly dependent upon these key members.
Experienced engineers were needed to support the customer issues.
Also, he felt that Ashok leading the entire division will affect his standing in the group.
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
9/10
In reference to the Mintzbergs managerial work roles classification, mangers roles are classified
into 3 groups:
Category
Role
Activity
Informational
Monitor, Disseminator,
Spokesperson
Seek and receive information, ensuring progress as planned, giving required information to
decision-makers, Spokesperson
Interpersonal
Figurehead
Leader
Liaison
representing the group to outsiders, providing direction/purpose, linking-pin between groups
Decisional
Entrepreneur
Disturbance handler
Resource allocator
Negotiator
seizing new opportunities, deciding which projects or activities to support, correcting deviations
from plans/expectations, securing favorable terms for the group
In our view, as a senior member of the team, Ashok & Suraj exhibited the Monitor, Figureheadroles but failed to play Liaison and Negotiator role.
In our view, Ashok would have taken Suraj into confidence before proposing the new group and
assured him that his group activities will not be affected. Also, Ashoks suggestion to delay the
decision was clear example of organization politics. Although Ashok succeeded in safeguarding
-
7/30/2019 A Case Study of Organizational Behavior
10/10
the interest of his group, due to this, TBU as an organization lost some of the Key engineers
and also cost advantage.
In our view, as a decision maker of the group, Michel should have played decisional role and
resolved the conflict between Suraj and Ashok. He should have created different growth path for
both of them which would have helped to resolve the conflict.
Key lesson learned:
We have learned that the concept of individual differences is fundamental to organizational
behavior. Each and every one pursues problems differently and acts differently. Employees
need to accept, respect, and learn how to use these differences when they arise.
When there is scarcity of resources, each group within the organization seeks to secure for itself
the scarce resources it requires for its survival.
Based on the several articles we read during the course of preparing for this assignment we had
a wide view why conflicts and organization politics happens in the industrial world.
A leader needs to keep the interest of the organizational interest foremost and act accordingly to
grow the organization. It is important to build a consensus within the group and get the
commitment from group before taking any important decision.
Organizational politics is unavoidable. It is important to exhibit legitimate political skills along
with knowledge and ability.