A Case Study of Organizational Behavior in TBU Engineering Essay Example

and excellence raised concerns from HQ about their role and future prospects. The recession in the USA further exacerbated these concerns as job security became a major worry for the HQ team.

As the IDC team effectively managed client support tasks, some engineers expressed a desire to work on R activities and take a break from their routine work. Ashok encouraged them to share their preferences for future work and promised to explore feasibility of their ideas.To drive growth in the IDC organization, Ashok suggested forming a focused group within the company to work on new product development and collaborate with the R division. His main goals were to give his team members opportunities to participate in R activities and enhance the contribution of the IDC division to the TBU by playing a significant role in R.

Suraj was surprised by Ashok's proposal as they hadn't discussed it before, and he felt disappointed. He had concerns about creating a focused group because it could cause divisions between teams. Suraj worried that engineers not part of the R group might become demotivated since R was viewed as more favorable. Additionally, he feared losing key team members to the R group and how it would impact his team's success. Skilled engineers were essential for addressing customer issues, and Suraj feared that Ashok taking over the entire division would affect his position within the group.

Ashok presented this idea to upper management, where Mahesh and Michel agreed to investigate and offer their perspectives. Michel relied on Mahesh's input due to being new to the division.

Subsequently, problems started arising between Ashok's and Suraj's groups.Previously, both teams had collaborated on customer issues without

difficulties. However, a disagreement between Ashok and Suraj about initiating a focus group caused conflict. Their differing viewpoints created tension during team meetings, impacting team morale and daily activities within the IDC group. When Ashok proposed his idea, Mahesh became worried about the R team at headquarters potentially losing their jobs if work was transferred to IDC. Mahesh also feared for his own position due to Ashok's influential leadership style. The publicized personal differences between Ashok and Suraj allowed Mahesh to divide the IDC leadership. In response, Mahesh and Michel intentionally delayed forming a new group at IDC, which further affected productivity and customer satisfaction. Despite this turmoil, Ashok frequently discussed starting his own venture due to his practicality, aggression, and entrepreneurial skills.He always took good care of his team members and suggested improved benefits and flexibility as part of the new group formation to motivate them. Despite repeatedly informing higher management about the difficulties he faced in coordinating with Suraj, resulting in the creation of a new group, Ashok's concerns were ignored and he eventually resigned. Due to Suraj's underperformance, upper management decided to terminate his employment. The sudden departure of both managers left a significant leadership gap in the IDC organization, causing concern among many team members about the future of the group and leading some experienced engineers to leave the company. In this situation, Mahesh approached key engineers at IDC and offered them job opportunities in the R&D team at headquarters. The attrition rate reached 60%, impacting customer support activities. Recognizing an opportunity, Mahesh proposed to higher management that given IDC's current capacity and expertise, it was no longer capable of handling

support activities and that they should be transferred to the headquarters team. Eventually, upper management agreed and moved critical customer support activity to the headquarters division. This eliminated job security concerns for the headquarters division as they became essential in both support and R activities.Ultimately, the IDC division hired a new leadership team and played a diminished role.

Analysis:

The above instance can be analyzed in terms of conflict, OB politics, and personality type.

Conflict

Conflict can occur between individuals or groups and across organizations as people compete. Some primary causes of conflicts include communication failure, personality conflicts, value differences, goal differences, methodological differences, substandard performance, lack of cooperation, differences regarding authority and responsibility, competition over resources, and non-compliance with rules. In this case, the conflict between Ashok and Suraj can be categorized as interpersonal conflicts due to personality clashes, different sets of values, lack of trust organizational change ,and threats to status.The main reason for this conflict was the changes suggested to the organization by Ashok which included changes in organizational structure , paths to take and their likely success ,resources to be used,and likely outcomes.Scarcity of resources can also bring about conflict as all managers within an organization try to secure for themselves the scarce resources required for survival. Each manager acts out of self-interestIn order to secure scarce resources, one group may block another group's access to those resources. Additionally, individuals place importance on their social ranking within a group. When someone's social ranking is threatened, they are motivated to salvage their reputation by maintaining their desired image. Conflict can arise between the threatened individual and the person

who posed the threat to their position.

A certain level of trust is necessary in any ongoing relationship as it allows for reliance on each other's words and actions. Trust plays a crucial role in breaking down barriers, creating opportunities for action, and enhancing the overall social fabric of an organization. However, Suraj lost trust in Ashok when he was surprised by Ashok's sudden proposal to create a new group.

Organizational politics can be described as manipulative behavior driven by self-interest. Individuals and groups pursue their own agendas at the expense of others, sometimes even disregarding organizational goals. This behavior is evident in resource battles, personal conflicts, power struggles, and strategic influence tactics used by individuals and groups to gain power, enhance personal status, control access to information, conceal true intentions,and form alliances.

While many leaders strive for organizational integrity,some resort to divisive tactics in order to maintain control or promote performance through competition.In his article "Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer," Rick Brenner discusses various strategies leaders use to create division in the workplace. One such tactic is assigning joint responsibility to two individuals who are already at odds, known as the "three-legged race." This can be seen as a mistake or an opportunity for them to resolve their issues, but more often than not, it aims to perpetuate conflict and protect the supervisor's interests. Another strategy involves delaying decisions when subordinates are competing for promotions or desirable assignments. Although supervisors believe competition improves performance, this tactic can harm relationships and negatively impact both the winner, loser, and the entire group's performance. Leaders also employ the strategy of delegating tasks to create conflict. While delegation usually enhances

effectiveness, some directors delegate different responsibilities to two individuals in a way that forces collaboration for success. By not holding either party fully responsible, the delegator manipulates the situation for personal gain by pitting one against the other. This tactic involves lying to one or both parties to maintain division and sustain problems that ultimately damage relationships and depress organizational performance.The implementation of this tactic is costly and the fixes are challenging as it requires reorganization and replacing personnel. For example, when directors promise to keep employees in mergers or acquisitions, they may still discriminate in resource allocation and opportunities, potentially increasing voluntary turnover in acquired units. This indirect breach of the promise to retain employees is considered unethical and can undermine the overall merger strategy. In a case study described here, Mahesh influenced Michel to use a tactic called "Delaying the decision," which ultimately resulted in Ashok's frustration and resignation. While Mahesh achieved his goals, his approach raises questions about its validity. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that leaders establish a unique relationship with a small group of followers known as the in-group. These individuals receive more attention from the leader, are trusted, and may have privileges. Michel's behavior aligns with this theory as he relied on Mahesh's suggestion when making decisions. However, this may not be beneficial for an organization in the long run as it does not offer equal opportunities to those outside of the in-group who only have a formal relationship with the leader.

Personality types

This section focuses on different personality types that will be discussed below.

MBTI Types

Swiss psychologist Carl Jung formulated a theory in the early twentieth century to

explain fundamental individual preferences and distinctions among individuals. The central idea of the theory is that people possess inherent behavioral tendencies and preferences. However, Jung's theory is intricate and not easily accessible to the general public. Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, a mother-daughter duo, expanded on Jung's work by creating a tool that aids individuals in identifying their preferences. The MBTI tool serves as an indicator of personality type, capturing innate inclinations. After more than 50 years of research, it has proven highly reliable and valid, being utilized worldwide in educational and corporate environments.

Extraversion - Introversion (E - I) Dichotomy: Where do you prefer to focus your attention and derive your energy?

Feeling - Intuition (S - N) Dichotomy: How do you prefer to gather information?

Thinking - Feeling (T - F) Dichotomy: How do you make decisions?

Judging - Perceiving (J - P) Dichotomy: How do you interact with the external world?

In the given example, Ashok is described as a natural leader and organization builder. He possesses ease in conceptualizing ideas and theories while effectively translating possibilities into long-term plans for future goals. With strategic vision, he excels at anticipating future needs through meticulous planning. Nonetheless, he tends to hastily make decisions without considering other choices or exploring alternative possibilities.The text highlights the dictatorial behavior of Ashok and his disregard for the needs of others. It categorizes his personality type as ENTJ. In contrast, Suraj is characterized by a strong sense of responsibility and loyalty to the organization. While he typically works alone, he is willing to collaborate when necessary. The team perceives him as calm, serious, and reserved. However, in group settings, he becomes inflexible and

critical, making premature judgments without considering different perspectives. Suraj's personality type is categorized as ISFJ.

Overall, the writer's viewpoint on preventing the problem is currently unavailable and requires an update.

The main lesson learned from our study is that understanding and embracing individual differences are crucial in organizational behavior. Each person has their own unique approach to work and behavior. It is important for employees to acknowledge, respect, and learn how to utilize these differences when they arise.

In situations where resources are scarce, different groups within the organization will compete for limited resources needed for their survival. Through studying various articles for this assignment, we gained a comprehensive understanding of why conflicts and organizational politics occur in the industrial world.

A successful leader must prioritize the organization's interests and make decisions accordinglyEstablishing consensus within the group and gaining commitment are crucial before making any significant decisions. While it is impossible to avoid organizational politics, it is essential to showcase legitimate political skills in addition to knowledge and ability.