ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR CASE: THE SCHOOL BOY

ROOKIE

Kent Sikes is a junior at state university. He has taken a summer job in the biggest factory in
his hometown. He was told to report to the warehouse supervisor the first day at work. The
supervisor assigned him to a small group of workers who were responsible for loading and
unloading the boxcars that supplied the materials and carried away the finished goods of the
factory.

After two weeks on the job, Kent was amazed at how little the workers in his crew had
accomplished. It seemed that they were forever standing around and talking or, in some
cases, even going off to hide when there was work to be done. Kent often found himself
alone unloading a boxcar while the other members of the crew were off messing around
someplace else.

When Kent complained to his co-workers, they made it very plain that if he did not like it, he
could quit, but if he complained to the supervisor, he would be sorry. Although Kent has been
deliberately excluded from any of the crew’s activities, such as taking breaks together or
having a Friday afternoon beer after work at the taveren across the street, yesterday he went
up to one of the older members of the crew and said, ”What gives with you guys, anyway? I
am just trying to do my job. The money is good, and I just don’t give a hang about this place,
I will be leaving to go back to school in few weeks, and I wish I could have gotten to know
you all better, but frankly I am sure glad I’m not like you guys.” The older worker
replied,”Son, if you’d been here as long as I have, you would be just like us.”

SUMMARY

1. Kent Sikes was assigned to work with small group of people to accomplish certain
goal.
2. Kent found other workers reluctant for the work and he was the one who used to work
more than them.
3. He found other workers forming an informal structure in an organisation which was
leading to wrong outcome like they used to hide the real state of tasks allotted to
them.
 4. He has been excluded from the crew’s activities as he was against their practices in an
organisation.
5. He had word with an old worker of an organisation, who said “ if you have to stay
here, you have to be just like us to sustain in this organisation.
6. Group cohesiveness was the major concern to be understood from the above case
study.

Q1) Using some of the theories, explain the possible reasons for the group formation of
this work crew. What types of groups exist in this case?

Definition of Group: Two or more individuals interacting and interdependent, who have
come together to achieve particular objectives.

There are two types of groups:

 Formal Group: A designated work group defined by the organization’s structure.

 Informal Group: A group that is neither formally structured nor organizationally
determined. It appears in response to the need for social contact.

There are further classification of groups:

 Command Group: A group composed of the individuals who report directly to a

given manager.
 Task Group: Those working together to complete a job or task.
 Interest Group: Those working together to attain a specific objective with which
each is concerned.
 Friendship Group: Those brought together because they share one or more common
characteristics.

Why people join groups?

 Security
 Status
 Self-esteem
 Affiliation
 Power
  Goal Achievement

From the above case, we can infer that groups were made out of their interest levels like
taking breaks together during work or having a Friday afternoon beer after work at the tavern
across the street. These groups were made informally amongst the workers. These groups are
further sub classified under the informal groups known as the Interest Groups.

Q2) What role does the supervisor play in the performance of this group?

The supervisor's made a small group of co-workers in the warehouse. He assigned them for
loading and unloading the boxcars that supplied the materials and carried away the finished
goods of the factory.

Q3A) What are the major informal roles of the crew members and Kent?

This case relates to group dynamics to work setting, the work group in this case is the in
group (group of people with shared interests and identities) and this group have informal
norms of performance which is different from Kent’s performance norms. This leads to some
friction between Kent and the group.

Norms are prescription for performance for acceptable behaviour determined by the Group.
Conformity to group norms allows individuals to be part of it, interact and collaborate
smoothly in groups.

In this case the Group B is a close primary Groups (means where member share close,
personal, enduring relationship and are marked by shared activities and culture). Kent is the
outcast. Here Kent is a “deviant” of group norms and rest of the crew members are
“Regulars”.

Q3B) What status position does rent have with the group? Why?

Kent is in the company for the summer job i.e. for a month so he is very focused towards his
job. He Reported to warehouse supervisors the first day of work. But he was amazed when he
came to know that how little the worker in his crew had accomplished, this lead to difference
between Kent and the Group, and Kent had the outcast position because he did not conform
to the lower performance norms of the Rest of the Group.

Q4A) Why hasn’t Kent been accepted by the group?

The supervisor assigned Kent to a small group of workers who are aware of the fact that he is
going to be in the company only for a summer job. The workers feel that they need not take
any inputs nor they are answerable to someone who is going to be in the company for a
limited time period. This indicates the Group property ‘Role Expectation’ defined as the
way others believe a person should act as per their Role.

After 2 weeks on the job, Kent observed that his crew members accomplished very little and
he eventually found that the workers were standing around, talking & even going off to hide
when there was work to be done. Kent often found himself alone unloading a boxcar while
the other members of the crew were off messing around someplace else. When Kent
complained to his co-workers, they made it very plain that if he did not like it, he could
quit, but if he complained to the supervisor, he would be sorry.

The statement made by Kent’s Co-workers shows that they did not like to instructed and
Kent’s Complaints didn’t matter to them, they also recommended Kent to quit if he didn’t
like it. The given statement above makes it evident that Kent was not accepted by the group
and it indicates the Group property “Deviant Workplace Behaviour” category –
Interpersonal [Being cynical & negative]

Q4B) Do you agree with the older worker’s last statement in the case? Why and Why
not?

The old man quoted that “Son, if you had been here as long as I have, you would be just like
us”

I do not agree with the old man’s last statement because the statement made reflects
negatively on the company and the group property which can be related to is of “Deviant
Workplace Behaviour” which is Voluntary behaviour that violates significant
organisational norms and in doing so, threatens the wellbeing of the organisation or its
members. Also called Antisocial behaviour or Workplace incivility.

Q5) What resulted in non-accomplishment of work?

Group Cohesiveness: Groups differ in their cohesiveness-the degree to which members are
attached to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some work groups are cohesive
because the members have spent a great deal of time together, or the groups small size
facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together.

Cohesiveness affects group productivity. The relationship between cohesiveness and

productivity depends on group’s performance-related norms. If norms for quality, output, and
cooperation with outsiders, for instance, are high, a cohesive group will be more productive
than will a less cohesive group. But if the cohesiveness is high and performance norms are
low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high,
productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When
 cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the
low-to-moderate range.

Cohesiveness
High Low

High High Productivity Moderate Productivity

Performance Norms
Low Low Productivity Moderate to low
productivity

Signs of Cohesiveness:

 Low cohesiveness - Information flows slowly within the group, the group has little
influence over its members’ behaviour, and group tends not to achieve its goals.
 Moderate cohesiveness - Group members work well together, there is a good level of
communication and participation in the group, the group is able to influence its
members’ behaviour and the group tends to achieve its goals.
 Very high cohesiveness - Group members socialise excessively on the job, there is a
very high level of conformity in the group and intolerance of deviance and the group
achieves its goals at the expense of other groups.

Group Think: A cohesive group’s desire for agreement interferes with the group’s consideration of
alternative solutions.

If we take the scenario of the case study, members in the group had accomplished very less as
they were standing and talking most of the time, in some cases, even going off to hide when
there was work to be done. Work was not accomplished because group members started
socialising excessively on the job-Very high cohesiveness and the focus of productivity was
low.