Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

By

Tatsat Prakash Pandey


IPM2011112
Section H
Q. Who were the low and high participating members of the group? How did the group
manage the high/low participators?
In our group, there were no particular members who were consistent in high or low participation.
There were times when a particular member, because of academic or personal reasons, could not give
his best to a particular case analysis but this was not the story for every case. The level of involvement
of every member varied from assignment to assignment and it was made sure that everyone
contributes equally. Still, if I would have to name a particular member, I would say that Dhaval was
the most participating member of the group meanwhile Ishani and Pratibha were the lowest of the
participating members. Dhaval being the most energetic and always participating member, was
automatically assigned as a leader meanwhile Ishani and Pratibha were always complaining about
others contribution meanwhile wasting time by doing so. Ishani was not a team player. She always
showed some brilliant individual results in the class but when it came to working for the group, she
always made her own interest as the priority and avoided group meetings to study for her own
benefits.

With time it was observed that role conflict led to lower individual involvement and commitment
towards group as individual priorities were overshadowing group priorities and leading to poor group
coordination and performance. A negative mail from faculty upon submission of one case analysis
acted as an alarm to work towards improving group performance.

As involvement of individual group members was controlled by a group norm that determined the
proper level of participation, it was made sure that everyone put equal efforts. Example - if someone
was not able to contribute much in some case analysis due to personal reasons then he/she have to
put extra efforts in the next assignment so that avoiding the work would not emerge as group norm.

Q. Reflect on the different identity issues (refer to the reading Identity Issues in Teams)
that you faced in your group?
Answer: I feel that all of us faced various identity issues, especially at the starting of the term
when the groups were formed and I can actually relate those issues with the ones I read in the
reading of Identify issues in Teams. The main issue that laid in front of all of us was of
Expressing our own identity to our fellow team members. All of us wanted to make our roles
clear to everyone but were struggling on how to do it. For example, I consider myself as more of
a creative personality than that of a number cruncher or guy with a quantitative aptitude. But on

the first day, I was assigned with the task of doing a quant analysis of a case in marketing. Being
it the first meeting, I didnt have such an understanding with the group members that I could
explain my situation to them. As a result, I ended up doing a satisfactory job with the analysis
which could have been done better by dhaval or ishani in my group (with their CA and CFA
qualifications). Thus, that was in instance where I wasnt able to convey my identity to my group
members resulting in a fall in the overall performance of the whole group.
As the time passed, we were able to convey our identity to the fellow members in a better way.
And also, we developed our own interpretations of others identities with the available
information. At times, our interpretations were accurate and at times we found them to be
completely wrong. For example: over the course of 2 or 3 meetings, I considered one of my
fellow member, Ishani, to be extremely hardworking and dedicated towards the group
assignments. But as we progressed I found her to be completely opposite. She was not a team
player. Despite her intelligence, she did not contribute to the group when it was required. It may
be possible that even this interpretation of mine might be completely subjective and not correct,
but this was an example of a serious identity issue that I faced with one of my team mates.
Finally, what I found over the course of time, was that the team developed a proper congruence
by putting together all the identities and impressions of one another in a satisfactory way. we
were aware of our individual identities as well as those of our group mates and the division of
work took place accordingly. For example: now we were aware that who was intelligent, who
was hardworking, who was uninterested and who was simply a free rider amongst the group
members and then we divided the work accordingly only. As we all knew that the marks of the
entire group were dependent upon the assignments that we worked upon, after a certain amount
of time, we stopped badgering the members who were uninterested and worked upon the
assignments as for ourselves as our individual marks were dependent upon that work.
Another thing I found regarding identity issues in our group was that there was an automatic
assignment of leader in the group based upon the impression that people found of a particular
person. Dhaval, who was the most hardworking amongst us, was chosen to lead all the
assignments and was made a P.O.C during all the assignments owing to his identity as an
intelligent and hardworking person. He was also considerate of everyones identity and kept
those in mind while taking any decision regarding the division of work.
We also took some steps in order to enhance the identity congruence among our group such as
we went out for occasional outings, sat down for meals together in mess and spent time with
each other to get the opportunity to each other in the best way possible. All this proved to be very
useful in the long run as increased bonding helped in clarifying each others identity easily.

Q. What were the challenges you faced when working as a member of this group for this
subject? How did you manage these challenges?
Answer: There were quite a few challenges I faced while working as a member of this group,
some of which I was able to resolve over a period of time, while some remained unresolved till
the end of the term. Firstly, I was not able to decipher what my Role in the group would be as.
There were times when while dividing work, we divided according to the extent of contribution
made by the members till that date. For example, members who had contributed the least till now
had to cover a major part of the upcoming case analysis while the others took rest for a while.
This, for me, remained a grey area in the overall functioning of our group. The quality of our
entire work was affected by this pattern of distribution and I was not comfortable by that. I
wanted that everyone should be assigned some particular roles in the assignments according to
their individual capabilities. For example: two of us who were good with quantitative analysis
should cover the quant part of the analysis while the ones who were comfortable with writing
should cover the framing part of the entire analysis. Also the creative ones should look after the
recommendations part of the marketing cases. But this was not happening and I wasnt happy
about it. I feel that this challenge mainly came up because of the fact that we had a really less
time to interact with each other except the group meetings because of our hectic schedule in the
first term. Had we been able to bond with each other in a better way, we might have had a better
understanding of each other. We tried to improve the same by spending more time with each
other as I mentioned in the first answer and eventually the things became better.
Also, I faced another serious challenge while working in this group. I had a very strong and
negative personal impression of one of the group members from the time before the groups were
formed by the PGP office. I wont be mentioning the reasons for that impression but it proved to
be a very difficult task for me to overcome that to work as a team alongside that particular
member. I wasnt able to work properly with her because of my own personal biases and didnt
pay attention to even the relevant of the points that she made during the case analysis. I also,
automatically, tried to overrule her points by picking out opposing points to her. Later, I was
explained by my group leader that this kind of behavior was not in favor of the functioning of the
entire group and was affecting the performance of the team as a whole. Also, I should clear my
things out with that particular member and maintain cordial relations for the benefit of the group.
Eventually I realized the importance of putting aside personal differences for the sake of the
team, as it turned out that her inputs were equally insightful as everyone elses and were for the
betterment of the case analysis as well.
Another challenge that I faced was of Halo effect that one of my team members seemed to be
inflicted upon with regards to me. I am not a very punctual person. I was always 10-15 minutes
late for the team meetings that were planned for doing the case analysis of marketing. Since the
starting, that particular team member formed an impression about me being uninterested and

academically incompetent. I found this out because he said the same about me to one of my close
friends. Eventually, I overcame that effect by performing well in the group.

Q. Describe your interest in the subject and if there was any change in the interest levels
during the term.
Answer: Ever since the starting of PGP 1, I had a huge interest in marketing as a subject and had
already decided it as the domain I would be pursuing as a career in my future. I had always been
fascinated by the various steps that are undertaken from making a product to selling it. Marketing
covers it all.
As we moved further in the course, following the case study method that is the forte of IIM
Indore, my interest in the subject mounted extensively as now I was able to actually analyze the
real life scenarios that had taken place with some of the best and the biggest companies of the
world.
Also, the requirement of a written case analysis before every case, that to be submitted as a
group effort made the subject much more interesting for me. I was now able to receive so many
more insights about any case that I wont have been able to develop single handedly. With so
many other people discussing the same case, I could find out many points that I had missed out.
Many times, it happened like Oh! I hadnt thought of this! owing to the group members and
their creative ideas.
Also, in marketing, many a times we have to look at the case from different perspectives. For eg:
not only in a general way, but also from a financial perspective. When I was in the group
discussion, interacting with my team mates with diverse backgrounds and having expertise on
various fields in the business, I was exposed to all these perspectives which made my
understanding of the case much more interesting.
Thus, I have to say, my interest in marketing, which was already in ample from the beginning,
increased to a very large extent in the first term, owing largely to my group and the methodology
followed by the faculty for studying the same.