.

.

.

.

.

Page 6 93136010 Whatever I did in the analysis I did with the intention of the hospital failing. So I focussed on finding out whatever was going wrong with the hospital and highlighting that. Once I had said something in class, I did not want to go back on it. I didn't want people to say, \"He said this in class previously and now in the analysis he is saying something else." I wanted to follow one stream. knowing that going back on what I said in class would be more embarrassing than having to admit that somebody else is right. Prior to class. he reviewed the facts one more time, but the case did not support his stance in any way. C hildren's Hospital seemed to be doing fine; the case did not lend itself to pessimism. The hospital had in the last six years been slowly progressing ahead of other hospitals. Mehta had his guard up and looked at the statistics one more time. He remembered how his professor had put emphasis on the fact that the numbers often tell a different story and. being an engineer. he had complete faith in this statement. \"I was looking for support for my position and wasn't getting it from anywhere." said Mehta. However, when he turned to the exhibits in the case, to his surprise the numbers for 200'? {the current year in the case] were completely different from the others. The hospital's income was around half of what it was the previous year. In fact. all the numbers seemed to have significantly dropped. \"I immediately latched onto it. it was like 'it's right here in the exhibit. but people aren't looking at it carefully enough.\" he recalled. The discovery overjoyed him and he rushed to tell the person closest to him. but thought twice about it. He was sure no one would have noticed it; he himself had come upon it by accident. He hurried to ask other people for their analysis of the case and his happiness was boundless when no analysis matched his own. It was sheer luck that he had made this discovery; this would be his ace. A group meeting would not be possible and his teammates would be busy with their own pursuits. He had no requirement for a group meeting anyway. and only needed Kumar to confirm his views. As soon as Kumar came. he showed him the numbers. He could sense some trepidation in Kumar. but he attributed it to his quiet. shy nature and ignored it. Explaining why he did not express his trepidation. Kumar said. \"After the first few cases, I felt that his analysis was better than mine. So there was a notion that whatever he says is correct." After meeting with Kumar. Mehta called up his other teammates and told them their parts. If their turn came tomorrow. the analysis would be nothing short of spectacular. D-DAY Organizational behaviour was the first class of the day and. besides Kumar. the others were unaware of the full analysis. The case presentation was distributed in such a manner that Mehta would get to present the main argument, whereas the others would just skim the surface of the case and recall the events that had brought about the current scenario. Class started and Mehta's group number was called; nally it was their turn'l It was as if destiny had written this day for him. The group started with the analysis, but the presentation lacked flow and was not up to par; they had not rehearsed or even met as a group for this case analysis. Still, Mehta knew that the final analysis would overshadow everything else. After Kumar nished his part, Mehta stood up on stage and made his claim that Children's Hospital was failing miserably. He saw the disbelief on the faces in front of him and could not wait to show them the data. He asked the class to turn to the exhibit that listed various metrics of the hospital's performance and to witness how in 2007 the figures had dropped to almost half the totals of the previous years. The disbelief in his classmates seemed to have compounded. He could not understand their reaction. There should have been a flutter of \"books" and \"ahhhsf' but the Page 4 93130010 According to Hitesh. another team member: Once I read a case and went to him to share my analysis. but he was very busy with his music club and thus would not listen to me, In group work. he used to do his own part very well and if others would not do their share. he would do that on his own and then he wouldn't listen to anyone, But we had faith in his capability and thought that it would be better that we let him do things as he wants to. as he will do the things that we all need. CASE ANALYSIS AND IN HCLASS PRESENTATIONS When the day came to present the first case. Mehta's group was not called and another group came to present the case. Mehta felt that this group's analysis was inferior to that ofhis group. and when the time came to give individual comments he made sure that his group's analysis was heard. When the opportunity arose. he explained the case completely and to his professor's satisfaction. He was praised for his analysis and this increased his confidence. as well as his group's confidence in him. Mehta now felt more responsible than ever for his group's performance. As time passed. the cases became more challenging and Mehta became more and more impatient. Five cases had passed with no sign ofhis group being called. and he was no longer the dominant force in class. He recalled: People used to come up to me and tell me that in the beginning of the academic year they were scared of me. as I had my hand up all the time: the professor asked the question and I had the answer. And that's who [wanted to be because I had never been that person. the person who's in front of the class. ready. prepared. the ideal student. At one point. people's perceptions changed. And that was the turning point. i wanted to come back. I wanted that image back. Other students were getting more accurate and elaborate with their answers. and Mehta now had to devote extra effort just to keep up. There were two students in particular that he was beginning to feel threatened by. and often these two would counter his opinions and come out on top. The pressure to prove himself to his classmates and his professor was at an allatime high. He remembered: These two other people. Hamid Anwar and Joseph Andrews. came from different backgrounds Andrews came from a commerce background and I respected him in that area. and Anwar was a computer engineer who I respect more because he tries to do his best in every area that he gets into. But then it was. like. GB is my subject. I should be number one in GB. not these people. So then i started reading further. not just the textbooks but other journals. whatever book I got my hands on. I read. thinking it could help the analysis further. so I focused completely on OB at that time. Accounting is not my thing. other people can take it; also. OB was the subject that most people were scared of or wanted to achieve in. I've seen in each trimester there is one subject in which achieving counts for far more than achieving in other subjects and. in the first term. OB was that subject. And so E thought that I should be the one to do the best. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL The sixth case was a twopart case about the practices of a hospital in the United States. its emphasis on safety regulations and the adoption ofa policy of full disclosure of medical errors. After reading the case. Mehta felt that the hospital was on the wrong track and that it would be unsuccessful in the long run. Yet he had found from his past experiences that the cases were usually selected to exploit the common biases of students and that there was a good chance ofother analyses being completely contrary to his own, . Who are the stakeholders in the case? . What are the immediate issues - problems, challenges or opportunities? . Basic issues? . Why, the cause of issues, and factors related to the issue? . Provide some solutions or alternatives/ recommendations on the issues identified in the case? Pa 0 2 93136010 venue tor his interview. At the interview. he made it a point to get noticed in the group discussion. and spoke his mind on the various questions posed to him in the personal interview. Mehta remembered telling one ofhis friends. \"I just couldn't bear to lose this chance. it's a great institute and it's new! I think I've done well enough and I should probably get in. this is one of the few institutes that will be able to recognize me for who I am." He recalled: I was very proud that I had come to a management institute when I was twenty-one. while many of my peers were around twenty-ve years old. On that level. I still managed to impress them with what I could say or do without any experience For this. IMT Nagpur provided that kind of platform. as the institute was very young. One ot'the major reasons for coming to IMT was that I am a big fan ofPrasoon Joshi.' l was very surprised to know that he came out of IMT Ghaziabad. Before I came here. when we were getting ready to leave. I and my dad used to joke that i will be the Prasoon Joshi of IMT Nagpur. I felt that I couldn't be that anywhere else. I had a chance to be one of the torch-bearers of IMT. to take IMT Nagpur further and be recognized for that. So. I thought that it was a very good institute. It was young and so was I. Mehta got a good start at EMT Nagpur. involving himself in various activities and making it a point to be at the top ofhis class. He was popular among his classmates: his gregarious nature made it easy for him to meet and befriend new people and his sense of humour was appreciated by others. There was a trimester system at the institute and one of the seven subjects in the first trimester was organizational behaviour. popularly known as OB. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR This subject was one of the most demanding in the rst trimester. due to the pedagogy used by the professor. Halfofthe OB classes involved a lengthy. in-depth case analysis that included presentations by groups as well as individual cold calling. Mehta recalled that this kept students alert and eradicated any complacency. especially as a significant part of the grade was for class participation. The classes. according to him. were always exciting and Mehta very much looked forward to OB. The only aspect that bothered him was that one did not get to choose one's group {individuals were randomly assigned to groups) and would not know when the group would be called to present its analysis. He felt that this handicapped him from being able to give his best performance After the groups were announced. Mehta scrambled to see which people were in his group. He recalled: Organizational behaviour came as close to psychology as it could. I have always had an inclination towards psychology. but never got a chance to do anything related to it. So. I was very excited to take charge immediately and amongst the people that were there. I wanted to be the leader. I wanted to make sure that we were the best group in the course. THE TEAM The team was diverse. with many interesting members. Besides Mehta. there were four others. and one member to whom Mehta felt instantly connected was Suresh Kumar. He seemed to be the ideal teammate hard-working. quiet and very knowledgeable. Mehta knew that he would be working most closely with ' Prasoon Josht' was a leading gure in the Indian advertising world. Page 7 9B13C010 only person smiling was the professor. The group members were asked to return to their seats and the professor asked the class if anyone wanted to point out whether something went wrong with the analysis. Immediately all the hands in the class went up, including, to Mehta's surprise, Kumar's. Mehta had failed to take into account that the exhibit figures for 2007 were year-to-date (YTD) figures, as was stated clearly in the exhibit, which meant that the figures were incomplete. In fact, the publication date of the case revealed that the figures were at best only for a couple of quarters of the year, and he had based his entire analysis on those figures. After the class, Mehta asked Kumar how he could have allowed him to commit such a fatal mistake, but Kumar could not explain why. Mehta could not believe that he could have been so completely blindsided.IVEy Publishing 9B13C010 MOTIVATED REASONING, LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE Syed Salman Ahmad, Sheetanshu Mishra and Santosh Kumar wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G ON1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Copyright @ 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2013-05-06 Ranjan Mehta could hear the distant echo of the words ringing in his ears. He stared in disbelief at the case in his hand, at all that analysis down the drain. He could feel the eyes of his classmates boring into his skull. He had let his group down. "There were high expectations for us," he thought. He felt completely shattered and wondered how his teammates felt, but couldn't bring himself to look them in the eyes. With his head down, he began to reflect on the events that had brought him to the current situation and wondered how things could have gone so completely wrong. IMT NAGPUR Located in the centre of India, the Institute of Management Technology (IMT) Nagpur was one of the up- and-coming business schools in the country. After only a few years of existence it was making its presence felt among the nation's elite business schools. It was well known for its beautiful campus and was consistently ranked among the top 20 business schools in India, ranking even in the top 10 on parameters of infrastructure and quality of faculty. The student enrolment had been growing rapidly. It was mandatory for all students to reside on campus, which was a vibrant hub of activity, especially after the classes finished in the evening. IMT Nagpur was part of the IMT family of institutions that had other campuses located in Ghaziabad and Hyderabad in India and in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. RANJAN MEHTA: ROAD TO IMT Ranjan Mehta had successfully passed the Common Admission Test (a prerequisite for entering into most MBA programmes in India) conducted by the Indian Institutes of Management, scoring in the 90th percentile. Upon the announcement of results he was heartbroken, as he had expected to get at least in the 96th percentile, which would allow him to participate in the next series of qualifiers to gain admission to the premier institutes of India. He crossed IMT off his list after seeing the results, as he felt there was no chance of getting into such an institute with his scores. He was by nature pessimistic and always prepared for the worst-case scenario, his justification being that "if you're prepared to meet the worst, nothing will ever unhinge you." His surprise was evident when the letter arrived at his doorstep informing him of thePage 5 93130010 This time. Mehta's group did not have a proper presentation ready. unlike the previous cases where the group was fully prepared with slides. Evidently. the passage of time had dampened the group's enthusiasm. If the group were called on. he would have to carry the group and hope that his teammates would not embarrass him. In any case. his individual presentation would be lauded. but the analysis would be claimed as a group effort and not his own. \"It will be alright." he convinced himself. It was time for class and with unsteady breath he waited for his group's number to be called. his stomach churning. The uncertainty always made him anxious. The group's preparation was not substantial: he would have to say something remarkable. maybe by countering popular opinion. The number was called and it was another group's turn. He turned towards his teammates and could see that they were visibly happy and he heaved a sigh of relief. The group would be better prepared for the next part of the case. After listening to the group's analysis. which was quite unlike his own. he waited for the individuals to be called up on stage to give their own insights, and this time his turn was up. Mehta approached the stage with complete confidence: the stage always felt familiar to him and being the centre of attention came naturally. The group's analysis was completely converse to his own and he would only need to counter each statement with his own interpretation of the data and situation. He had already noted each point the group had made. Up on stage. he disputed the claims made by the group that had presented. He spelled out certain doom for the hospital disclosure policies on safety should not be a major concern for a hospital. he dictated. It was a business and the focus should be on making a profit. Having a policy on full disclosure of medical errors would only harm the business due to negative publicity. He remembered how his professor had said in the very beginning that there is no singular analysis for a case. He applied this lesson meticulously. completely refuting the group's insights. knowing that even though he was unconvinced of his own analysis it could not be proven wrong. He recalled: Though I wasn't convinced at all by the stand that I took. it was a matter of ego. as it happened that both Anwar and Andrews had taken the stand that the hospital would succeed and at that point I just wanted to show that there is another way of looking at it. When it came down to analyzing the case. I stuck to my guns. I thought that Children's Hospital would succeed in my heart I wanted it to succeed but I wanted me to succeed more than the hospital. I wanted to show up these two people in class. Before the class ended. his view was broadly challenged by most of the class and he had no difculty in laying to rest their claims. As he came from a long lineage of doctors. he felt that he knew how the medical system worked. He said: My paternal grandfather was on the National Ayurvedic Advisory Board to the Prime Minister of India. and my uncle had worked as a gastroenteritic surgeon in AIIMS.2 On the paternal side. almost everybody has forayed into medicine and they know the ins and outs of medicine. and I'm the only boy on the paternal side. so I tried to keep in touch with this heritage and am proud of that lineage. Still, Mehta seemed unnerved that most of the class had a view that was contrary to his own. At the end of the session. the next case to be analyzed was circulated. As expected. it was a sequel to the current case and seemed more challenging. It concerned the actual functioning of the hospital six years from the adoption of the fulldisclosure policy and focus on safety. He decided to stick to his point of view; he could interpret the sequel from this perspective too. He recalled: 2 AiiMS {All india institute of Medicai Sciences) was one of india's most reputed hospitals. Page 3 93130010 him. He recalled. \"I thought that I couldn't do everything myself and I needed somebody who would be able to execute the ideas and act as a pillar of support. Kumar was very willing to do whatever was sent his way. At that point I thought he was very calm and very ready to do work. So. somebody like him was ideal.\" Kumar reciprocated the feeling saying. \"Till today. my feeling about him has not changed. He is a very talented guy: he has good analytical skills. is well behaved and committed. So. I felt that this was one guy with whom I could work well." Mehta prided himself on reading through the cases at least three times in order to offer the most insightful analysis. The group that would present the analysis would be unknown until they were picked by drawing a number in class. It was similar to a lottery: however. the probability of being picked increased with time. Mehta hoped that his group Would be the very rst to be chosen. and prior to the analysis ofthe first case. he had made it a point when the group met for the first time to rehearse how it would present its analysis to the class. He demanded perfection and made sure that the analysis would be as extensive as possible. He listened to everyone's insights and cross-questioned all members to make sure that they would not be nervous. His presence was dominating and he knew that sometimes his methods could be harsh. Yet he believed that the ends justied the means and the group did not protest much. Mudit. another team member. recalled: Ranjan naturally takes charge and once his mind is made up. it is difficult to change it. He was actually a bit bossy. but some group members were also stubborn in their ways. One of them would be downtown most of the times when there was a group meet and another [Manoj] would rarely turn up: another was frequently late. So he had to be bossy at times to make the group stick. Though the group had synergy. Mehta often felt that it was not working hard enough. He did not hesitate to point this out to his group members and would otten criticize them. This would frequently result in analysing the case on his own and then distributing the various parts to the group and highlighting what they would have to say during the presentation. Recalling his thoughts at the time. he said: I thought I was the best person to analyze all the cases and they were happy with it. and at that time OB was the numero- into- subject in the first trimester. So. people were happy that I was taking the load and distributing the parts to them. I was happy that I got to analyze the case ntyselt'and come up with the solution. Recalling Mchta's interpersonal style. Kumar said: Ranjan is a talented guy. but he was not able to communicate well with all group mates. If he felt that group mates were not contributing to the case analysis. he would stop calling them for discussions and wouid say that he and I could do the entire case analysis by ourselves. Sometimes we forced them to contribute. I had noticed that ifany group member was not contributing to the case analysis. he would be unhappy. but if the member was contributing then he Would be happy. I thought that as a team leader. this should not be. Ifa group member is not contributing. it might be because of some other justifiable reason. like on one occasion one member had an important sports event when the analysis was due. But most ofthe time, it was just us two who analysed the cases