Ob : All the Wrong Moves

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR-I CASE ANALYSIS solely the Wrong Moves Submitted to Dr. Saleena Khan Asst. Professor, OB & HRM Area IMT, Nagpur Submitted By GROUP-1, SECTION-A Aakanksha Garg 2012001 Abhinav Aggarwal 2012007 Abhishek Gupta 2012013 Abinash Dash 2012015 Aditya Mohan 2012022 Akash Agrawal 2012029 Anant Kr Ajmera 2012040 Ankita Pandey 2012051 Introduction This reason is about a connection Nutrorim which was founded in 1986 by an organic farmer and his wife.Nutrorim manufactures various lines of vitamins and nutritional supplements. The case is about the f lawfulnesss in conclusiveness qualification fulfill of the accomp any(prenominal). take on Rifkin is the of import character of the case who tries to correct the endings made by the company at the season of crisis or otherwise. The employees of the company give mixed and different reviews over the same discussions. Don the CEO of the company tried to find out the feedbacks with the help of consultants. darn going thro ugh the case we tried to find out the main reasons for poor conclusiveness make of the company and tried to find the solutions for the same.Background Nutrorim which was founded in 1986 by an organic farmer and his wife had been at the top of its field. Nutrorim s products had gained national attention and the companys organic, performance-enhancing supplement powder pullulate Up had gone through the roof due to an endorsement by a famous Olympic athlete. This lead the Nutrorim to hire hundreds of new employees, aggrandize its production facilities and acquire two vitamin firms. Nutrorim went human race in the year 1997 and by 2002 Changeup was the best-selling performance-enhancing sports powder on the market.Don Rifkin who joined Nutrorim as CEO in 1989 had tried hard to foster a happy, participatory, classless culture at Nutrorim. Steve Ford was the head of the R&D section of Nutrorim. But during the recent one year, Nutrorim had suffered from a spate of bad endings. A c onsultant was hire to review the companys ratiocination making processes that had individual interviews with older tutors. Objectives * Understanding the importance of objective analysis and oversight at strategical level decision making in an organisation Necessity to take away a firm and clear hierarchy within an organisation for efficient decision making in face of crisis. * Understand need for a Leader to identify the expertise that his subordinates agree and assigning them responsibilities accordingly for footrace an organisation effectively. * Understanding the ineffectiveness arising out of decision making process in an organisation if it is withal democratic at strategic level. depth psychology The said company was presented with an accusation that their product was making people sick.The companys options were to affirm the potentially dangerous product on the shelves, which could turn into a law suit, or to accept the costs and do a recall. In encounter of the t op managers there were huge disagreements on who should have the most business office in the decision-making process and there was niggling organized discussion and non all the voices were being heard. There was a lack of centralized leadership that was able to weigh all the voices and get in a more crafty decision. The committee outgrowths were not unified on what should actually be done.Employees in positions of power did not ask the right questions to make well-informed decision. The decision to recall Charge Up was made under a wad of uncertainty and was the facts were not analyzed thoroughly before taking decision. The company knew the consequences of recalling or leaving the product on the shelves. This decision was a non-programmed decision that should be made by top managers. The situation was brought to a local radio station and the company began to panic that the information would go public ruining the companys reputation.There are too legion(predicate) people gi ving their inputs and many took the accusations personally which limited objective, productive discussions on what was the best action for the company to take. The company needs to name a person or a small group of people that are able to take ailment in times of crisis in order to manage discussions better and make the ultimate decision. The leadership should be able to question or need research of cases surrounding their dilemma. The Leadership here wasnt effective in identifying the expertise of its members which at times created conflicts within the team.Solutions * Nutrorim lacked a definite jut for taking actions when decisions are to be taken especially when a time was a constraint. * Don was correct when he wished to have a little democratic approach to taking decisions but relying completely on consensus resulted in beating around the bush too often and wasting a lot of time. Taking multiple perspectives of looking at a job and finding its solution can be done systemat ically by the process of one by one feedback but the final decision must rest on the C. E.O and the concerning department head as a decision taken by a majority vote whitethorn not be correct as the domain expertise of employees take part in the meeting shall be vivid (It depends on the area where the trouble is arising). * In this case when Nutrorim was accused of causing gastric problems to its customers a apropos action was imperative as the name of the brand was at stake. concern multiple meetings was a waste of time and actions should have been taken by Don as a leader himself after listening to each ones views. He should have instructed PR Director to immediately revert to the calls she got from the media person (radio station) to let the public know that since such an investigation is taking drift the company gives maximum priority to its customers health and it shall take down consider a recall till the time the investigations were completed by the health department. This action would make the public aware that the company was not trying to hide something under the carpet and it was cooperating with the health department. A decision has to be taken with all the facts and perspectives in mind and not on the nose taken because its to every ones taste. Ones the rationale is clear behind the forge of action for addressing the problem at hand, the chair shall immediately ensure its punctual execution. * Corporate culture was not sound. Steves deportment towards Nora was inappropriate and his behaviour should have been condemned and sorted out by Don. Its very all-important(a) for employees to work cordially for healthy functioning of an organisation. Presence of a noesis department in the company keeps a record of effective word form of actions taken by other companies at the time of similar crisis in the past helps to take timely measures effectively. Learning from others helps in decision making. divinatory Relations * Bounded rationality H e could perceive that recalling the product is the except plan of action. He didnt explore other options. * Rational decision making He measured the options, took feedbacks from the other employees, and did a thorough pick up before taking a decision. Pro-active personality He takes initiatives, has decision making abilities. * Employee engagement He engages all the employees of the company in decision making process. * Workforce diversity There is diverse workforce in the company. managerial learning * A manger should understand skills of each team member and assign them responsibilities according to their areas of expertise. * Controlling power A manager should have firm control over the decision making process in the organization and should also be an effective team leader. Coordination A manager should be able to establish coordination among the employees. There should not be conflicts among the employees if any then manager should intervene and resolve the same. * Balance bet ween democratic and dictatorial approach A manager should not be too democratic as well as dictatorial in decision making. REFERENCES United States Edition , entitled Organizational Behavior, 14th Edition, ISBN 9780136124016 by Robbins, Stephen P. , Judge, herds grass A. , published by Pearson Education Inc. , publishing as Prentice vestibule 2011