Mr.

Nayan’s
situation under
microscope
Case Study by Group Four
 Table of Contents
1 Introduction Slide No. 3 - 4

2 Reasons of not supporting Slide No. 6

3 Explaining reasons with theory Slide No. 7

4 Change & Organizational Change Slide No. 9

5 How Organizations Manage Change Slide No. 10

6 Kurt Lewis Change Management Model Slide No. 11

7 Explanation with Theory Slide No. 12

8 Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership Slide No. 14 – 15

9 Contingency theory relation to this case Slide No. 16

10 Theory of Motivation Slide No. 17

11 Theory X and Vroom’s expectation theory Slide No. 18 – 21

12 Conclusion Slide No. 22

2
 Overview of the case
Mr Kamal Nayan a young, energetic and result oriented MBA from Usa
recently joined as an Office manager at Industrial Production Ltd.
After joining he changed his office timing from 10:30-5:30 to 10-5 as he
felt it would be more convenient. No one objected initially but after 2
days he received a written memorandum by all office personals to
restore office timing, But he did not yield to this demand.
However Mr. Nayan realized that he has to build cooperative spirit
with his colleagues through informal convene. Therefore , he
prepared a scheme of having monthly office dinner party, all
members were to bring there home made dishes. There families were
also encouraged to join.
The scheme was announced through placing it on the information bulletin of the
company. The notice also invited suggestions from the members for making the
scheme successful. Two weeks elapsed but no suggestion came.
On one occasion when the day was nearing for the first dinner party.
He overheard the conversation between two of his office co-workers:-
“So what are you bringing for the office party? as for myself, I will bring Bhelpuri”
Second employee:- “I will bring Chana”(both laughed).

Problem Statement
Mr. Nayan understood that no one was concerned about his scheme.

4
 “
What are the reasons for not
supporting the actions of Mr.
Nayan by his employees?

5
Reasons for not supporting Mr. Nayan
• It is assumed that Mr. Kamal Nayan did not consult the employees on the matter of change in office timing.
• He forcefully tried to change the office timings without consulting with his employees.
• When employees sent a written memorandum to him then he did not take any initiative, rather than he ignored
them.
• He did not think about the pros and cons of his new decisions.
• Mr. Kamal Nayan did not know the reality of Indian work culture where the workload is more in the early morning
and less in the afternoon.
• Employees are habituated with normal Indian working time. If suddenly the work timing is changes then it is very
much difficult and problematic for the employees to work in this new timings.
• Before taking any decisions, Mr Nayan should think whether the new decision will be benefitted for the employees
or not. He did not think the consequences.
• Employees may have a perception that Mr. Kamal Nayan is an autocratic leader because he did not listen to
anyone.
• Instead of correcting his error, he throw a dinner party to control the damage which is a big mistake of Mr. Kamal.
• As a result of it employees thought that if they create pressure on Mr. Kamal then he might restored the office
timings. That’s why they want to boycott the dinner party.

6
 Explanation with theory of this case
◎ High Motivation By Power: Mr. Kamal Nayan is a very young energetic person who believed that
he can bring change into an company which shows that he was highly motivated by power.
◎ Benevolent Autocratic Leadership: He did not took suggestions from any other office personnel
but also refused their demand which shows his autocratic behavioral where he treats his
employees as servants but also wants them to join him for his dinner plan which he planned to
get to know the employees better which indicates that he was benevolent aristocratic.
◎ Fiedler’s Contingency Model: According to Fiedler’s model, a leader may have either positive
factors or negative factors. In this case Mr. Kamal Nayan has the negative factors which are
unfriendly, unhelpful and gloomy as he did not feel the necessity for considering employee’s
problem regarding changing the office timings suddenly without prior notice or any formal
discussion.
◎ Lack of relationship behavior: Mr. Kamal Nayan did not listen to his followers, he did not
encourage them. Here, a two-way communication lacks between Mr. Kamal Nayan and his
employees. He has low follower readiness, emphasizing more on task behavior regarding office
timing rather than relationship

7
 “
Suggest how should Mr.
Nayan proceed in this Case.

8
Change & Organisational Change
◎ Change refers to an event that occurs when something
passes from one state to another.

◎ Organizational Change refers to change in strategy,

resources allocation and asset disposals along with
significant re-engineering of the organisation structure
as a standard part of many change efforts.

9
How Organisations Manage Change?
It depends on various factors:
◎ Nature of Business
◎ People involved in the process
◎ How well people understand the importance of
change and it’s process

10
Kurt Lewin’s Change Management Model

11
Explanation with theory of this case
◎ Unfreezing: Mr. Nayan can motivate his employees in the
“unfreezing” stage by informing them about the vitality of change
being planned in context of organization benefits
◎ Changing: In the “changing phase” the company can initiate
practical steps with regard to the strategic plan for change. It can be
achieved by developing strong relationships and offering rewards.
◎ Refreezing: Refreezing phase allows to make recently innovated
change a part of their strategy so that employees does not get back
to the previously used operational timings of the organization

12
“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things,” believed renowned management coach and
author Peter F. Drucker. He used the quote to demonstrate the difference between management and leadership.

Often, it is believed that a good manager is always a good leader. However, that is not true because behaviours that
make a person a good manager are often not in favour of innovation.

13
How to Build a More Successful Team with Fiedler’s
Contingency Theory of Leadership
What’s Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership?
Fiedler’s Contingency Model states that there’s no one best style of leadership.
Instead, a leader’s effectiveness is determined by whether the leader’s style and
the environment in which the leader is performing complement each other.
Fiedler’s Contingency Concept is based on a theory developed in the mid-1960s
by Austrian psychologist Professor Fred Fiedler after studying the personalities
and characteristics of leaders.
He found that a leader’s readiness level came down to two things:
◎ Natural leadership style
◎ Situational favourableness

14
 Which situation is best for your leadership style?
According to Fiedler’s model, each leadership style works best in different situations.
If you’re a task-oriented leader, your leadership style suits the extremes of situational
favourableness. If it’s a very favourable situation or a very unfavourable situation,
you’ll thrive. If you’re a relationship-oriented leader, you’re the most effective leader
in environments with situational favourableness that sits in the middle of the scale.

15
 How does this Fiedler’s Contingency Theory is related to this Mr Kamal
Nayan Case & how it will be effective:

◎ When Mr Nayan took any decision might be consult with his

employee once, it may be enhance the quality of relationship-
oriented leader.
◎ He may be call all his employees in meeting room or seminar hall
and announce for the dinner party it will be more effective way to
prove himself as a situational base leader.

16
 Implications of Theories of Motivation
Work motivation "is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as
beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behaviour, and to determine its
form, direction, intensity, and duration".
In his relentless struggle to strike a balance between the strategic goals of the
organisation and the needs of individual employees, the foremost important task of a
manager, is to determine what motivates people at workplace.

17
Theory X and Theory Y
Mr. Nayan is a Theory X manager for the following reasons:
◎ He announced the change in office timings officially without discussing about it with
other employees and they deprived of being a part of decision making.
◎ Mr. Nayan had also ignored the written memorandum sent by all the office personals
about restoring the old office timings.
Although Mr. Nayan had later announced a scheme of having a monthly office party on the
information bulletin of the company, the employees did not take it seriously. This shows
that his relation with his colleagues is not good. He should try to be a Theory Y manager
and cater to the needs of the organisation as well to those of his employees. He should
encourage participative decision making and have good interpersonal relationships with
his colleagues for increasing employees’ job motivation and thereby promoting
organisational growth. If he becomes a Theory Y manager, the employees might
understand his concern and actually agree with his decision of changing the office hours
and also participate enthusiastically in the office parties.

18
 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Motivation, according to Vroom (1964), boils down to the decision of how much
effort to exert in a specific work situation. The choice is based on two stage
sequence of expectations (Effort Performance) and (Performance Outcome).
Employees will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when they believe it will
lead to good performance appraisal; that is a good appraisal will lead to
organizational rewards such as bonuses, salary increases, promotions; and that
rewards will satisfy the employees’ personal goals.
◎ MF= V x I x E
◎ MF= MOTIVATIONAL FORCE
◎ V= VALENCE
◎ I= INSTRUMENATALITY
◎ E= EXPECTANCY

19
 EXPECTANCY (EFFORT-PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP)

First motivation is affected by an individual’s expectation that a given level of effort

will produce an expected level of performance appraisal. The employees would
be motivated if Mr. Nayan declares that the employees will get good performance
appraisals if they started following the new schedule sincerely.

INSTRUMENTALITY (PERFORMANCE-REWARD RELATIONSHIP)

Second, motivation is influenced by an individual’s perceived chances of obtaining

various outcomes as a result of accomplishing performance goals. If Mr Nayan
informed the employees that they would get organisational rewards on account
of their achievement of personal goals, they would be better motivated to follow
any new rules.

20
 VALENCE (REWARDS-PERSONAL GOALS RELATIONSHIP)

Finally, individuals are also motivated to the extent that they value the
outcome that they receive (Rewards-Personal Goals Relationship). It refers
to the positive or negative value that people place on outcomes. Mostly
people attach more values to outcomes such as increased salary,
promotion or recognition than to factors like stress and layoff. Thus, if Mr.
Nayan clarifies about the organizational reward system (bonuses,
promotions) to the employees, they would be better motivated to give their
best performance and adhere to the new schedule.

21
 Suggestions
Taking into account all the relevant factors, Mr. Kamal Nayan has the following alternatives with
consequences both positive and negative attached with each alternative
• Mr. Nayan may stick to both actions - change of office timing and holding of monthly dinner party.
Views: On such an action, Mr. Nayan may be treated as a firm person who believes in sticking to his
decisions at any cost. His action may please those employees who prefer to work under strict discipline.
Counterviews: This action of Mr. Nayan may spread fear among the employees. This may result in adopting
the practice of work-to-rule and nothing more. This practice may hamper employee productivity in the long
run as the employees may not feel adequately motivated to do more in the absence of supporting
leadership.
• Mr. Nayan may stick to change in office timing and drop monthly dinner party.
Views: This action may put more emphasis on formal relationships between him and his employees.
Through formal relationships, he can get things done from the employees and over the period of time, the
employees may adjust themselves with the new office timing.
• Mr. Nayan may postpone change in official timing and proceed with monthly dinner party.
Views: This action may please the employees and they may participate in the dinner party enthusiastically
as the controversial issue has been dropped.
Counterviews: This action may weaken the position of Mr. Kamal as the employees may develop a feeling
that he can break under pressure. This will result bad in future.

22
Thank You!
Any questions?

23