Case Analysis –
Motivated Reasoning
Presented By: Group 6
Roll No: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Summary of Case
Ranjan Mehta – Pursuing MBA at IMT Nagpur
Studying OB and preparing group presentations to analyse case studies
similar to this one.
Mehta was a very competitive and hard working guy.
Mehta was excited by the approach taken in the OB classes (i.e. cold calling,
group presentations).
Mehta had an inclination towards psychology and therefore was naturally
attracted to OB.
Mehta took charge in his group as he wanted to do well in OB. He read the
cases multiple times for effective analysis and demanded a similar level of
dedication from his teammates.
Mehta at times was unhappy with the group’s hard work, thus he often took
the task to analyse the case upon himself.
With other group members being busy with other ventures, most of the work
was done by Mehta and Kumar itself.
Children's Hospital case study where Mehta had a very
contrarian view, he was unsure that the hospital was at
success whilst the majority had a opposite view to this.
Mehta for this case study was unprepared and unconvinced by
his own analysis.
Mehta took the contrarian option only to stand up to Anwar
and Andrews – students he felt academically threatened by.
Following the sequel case, he found out that the current year’s
(2007) profit were half of the previous year, which only
seemed to strengthen his claim.
Without consulting his teammates he went on to present the
following point as part of his analysis.
Mehta’s point about the 2007 profits being half turned out to
be incorrect since it only had year-to-date data, which means
the figures were incomplete.
Problem
The core problem is due to motivated reasoning.
Mehta took his emotion lead motivation biases to affect his
judgement when analysing the case.
Mehta only took the perspective that the hospital was not
performing well because his competitors took a different view
and he wanted to prove them wrong.
This lead to make biased decisions and affect the overall
performance of the group.
Mehta’s dominant personality and tendency to take charge of
the group analysis also lead to an imbalance in group
dynamics.
He had a lack of consideration for his teammates input.
Mehta’s overconfidence in his analysis and his tendency to
seek information that confirmed his initial perspective lead
him to disregard contradictory evidence.
Mehta also had a rigid adherence to his initial analysis, even in
the face of contradictory evidence. This showed a lack of
flexibility and adaptability.
Assumptions
Mehta was potentially unaware of his biases and motivated
reasoning and how it was influencing his decisions.
The team members may not have felt empowered due to
Mehta’s strong and dominating leadership style and a fear of
conflict.
There was a lack of transparent communication since most of
the workload was taken by Mehta himself. This also made it
difficult to address any issues.
Criteria
To evaluate the potential solutions, the criteria could include:
Improvement in team performance.
Improvement in communication between team members.
Reduction in biased decision making by Mehta.
Improved morale between team members to share the work
load.
A more inclusive culture where diverse opinions are valued.
Alternatives (Potential Solutions)
Leadership Training: Mehta could undergo programs focused
on emotional intelligence, decision making, and awareness of
cognitive biases. This will help in reducing motivated
reasoning.
Feedback: Mehta should be taking regular feedback from his
group members on the effectiveness of his leadership and his
decisions. This allows to keep a check on biased reasoning.
Conduct a thorough SWOT analysis: Mehta should identify the
strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats related to the
group produ
Consider multiple perspectives: Mehta should analyse the case
from multiple perspectives of patients, staff, management and
other relevant stakeholders.
Decision
Based on the analysis, the best course of action for Mehta
would involve a combination of leadership training on
cognitive biases and decision making along with establishing
feedback mechanisms to empower team members to voice
concerns in a safe and structured way.
Implementation
Step 1: Mehta should undergo a leadership development
program that works specifically on motivated reasoning,
leadership biases and how they impact team biases.
Step 2: Mehta should create a feedback loop such as
anonymous surveys or structured feedback sessions where
team members can raise concerns about leadership or team
performance without any fear.
Step 3: Mehta should regularly self evaluate the impact of
these interventions on his leadership decisions and team
performance.
Thank You!
