Case Study: Analyzing Leadership and Group Dynamics in Machilla's Team

This case study examines the dynamics within a team, focusing on the experiences of Machilla and the leadership styles of Mr. Basin and Mr. Kankaria. The analysis identifies the situation as a potential failure of leadership and team dynamics. It explores the impact of autocratic leadership, employee perception, and the importance of group dynamics. The Johari window is used to explain Machilla's self-perception versus the team's perception of her. The study highlights the conflict between Machilla's enthusiasm and the seniors' approach, suggesting that a Laissez-Faire or coach-style leadership might have been more effective than the autocratic approach. The conclusion suggests that Machilla's perception of herself and the leadership style contributed to the negative team dynamics. References to relevant theories and research are provided to support the analysis.

Introduction
The facts presented in the case study can be diagnosed as follows. It seems like a case of
“autocratic leadership causing a failure in the maintenance of healthy group dynamism, resulting
in the form of an uninterested employee carrying the tasks for optimum results”. For a better
understanding of the condition, it can be seen from different “points of views” and hypothetical
scenarios can be weaved around to define the roles and acts of various stakeholders (Henderson,
2017).
The facts of the case primarily indicate the wrong implementation of theories related to group
dynamism, leadership and right exploitation of the nature of the group. The present facts of the
case give us an account of the Machalia. However, it is important to have a look at the events
from the senior members of the team Mr. Basin and Mr. Kankaria. Here the concepts of the
Johari window can also be applied for a better understanding of the team dynamism. The nature
of the job or the project is another issue that should be taken into an account. We should not
forget that it is a case of attaining a short term goal and chances for the trial and error are
minimal in this case.
The result of the endeavor is another factor that should be taken into an account. In the present
case, the result is optimum. The present analysis of the case is an attempt to jot down a path
leading towards a “win-win” situation for all the stakeholders and results associated with the
endeavor. Under this assessment, we will try to prescribe the right set of theories and practices
that might lead this project towards “best results” instead of “optimum results .”
(Markman, 2013)

An analytical commentary on “what is happening”
The case facts cover the journey of Machilla, a young employee, to implement a plan. The stance
of Mr. Basin and Mr. Kankaria presents them in an autocratic light because they are not ready to
listen to Machilla. An extreme reaction also defines the autocratic nature of the senior members
of the team when they say that Machilla is a “hot-blooded youngster bubbling with unrealistic
ideas.”
An argument can be built upon the basis of this reaction. The theories of the group dynamism
indicate that under the setup of a “formal group” any comment related to the age or ethnicity of a
person cannot be welcomed, the criticism from the side of a senior should be fact-driven and
move on the lines of being constructive criticism. The account of Machilla gives us the idea that
this statement causes a lot of resentment for her and she conceded a defeat by declaring the fact
that her seniors are acting as autocratic leaders (Kramer, 2014).
However, the same case can be seen under the light of another fact, when Machilla presented a
plan along with corroborative data, her seniors appreciated the plan and decided to keep it as a
backup plan. This appreciation from the side of seniors can be represented as a “symbolic
convergence” of the team leader. Under the concept of the symbolic convergence by a team
leader, a team leader acknowledges the unreal ideas of a team member and appreciates them on a
theoretical level. The reporting of the Machilla paints the leaders of the team in a negative light,
however, this act of symbolic convergence forces us to have a look at the issues from a different
perspective (Bateman, 2019).
The impact of the acts of seniors and the perceptions developed by Machilla

Perceptions of the team members about each other play a crucial role in fixing the positive or
negative team dynamism. Mahhilla reacted sharply on a “loose comment” made by a senior;
however, she ignored the words of appreciation coming from the same authority. It can be
considered as a myopic vision and reflects that as a team player she is required to strike a balance
with the opinion of the others. Sometimes a subordinate needs to channelize his or her energies
in a direction where she can become a medium to fulfill organizational goals and purposes set for
a team (Chatman, 2013).
The facts of the present case indicate that Machhila is an over-enthusiastic team member and she
is somehow desperate to prove a point. The behavior of Machilla can be explained with the help
of the Johari window.

Image 1: Image of Johari window depicting all the four quadrants of the Johari window. Image
retrieved from https://medium.com/@muabusalah/johari-window-technique-can-improve-the-
culture-of-knowledge-sharing-f9c853a549e4
Image 1, depicts the diagram of Johari Window, Johari window presents an essential framework
to facilitate the transfer of the knowledge in a formal or informal group setup. Four quadrants of
the Johari window signify an individual’s perception towards herself and how others are looking
at it. Two facts of the present case study establish the fact that there Machilla is suffering from a
paradox between “self-conclusion” and “Joint conclusions.” Joint conclusions drawn by her
seniors consider her as a competent employee with bright ideas, however, her “self-conclusion”
differs and she rates herself differently, she feels that she is a competent employee and facing
neglect because her seniors are autocratic and fixed with old ideas (Abusalah, 2019).
This difference in the opinion is creating a situation in her mind which can be termed as “role
conflict” in terms of management. The facts of the case reflect that Machilla has formed an
opinion about Mr. Basin and following his orders reluctantly. This hostility of Machilla also
indicates a flaw in the leadership style of Mr. Basin. Ideally, Mr. Basin should follow Laissez-
Faire type of leadership; under this type of leadership style a leader allows a certain degree of
freedom to the employees, Mr. Basin should come up with a plan where he can allow selective
freedom to some of the enthusiastic employees like Machilla and boost their morals. When we
check the present case from the perspective of a “leadership failure” we find that Mr. Basin
failed in channelizing the energies of an ambitious work in the right direction. A coach like
leadership style can also be adapted to handle enthusiastic and bright employees like Machilla
(S.P.Myres, 2013).

We can also present a rebuttal to the existing thought process related to alternatives presented by
us. Many researchers believe that a Laissez-Faire type of leadership can kill the productivity of
an employee; it can give them the liberty to wander induce a failure when a company is chasing a
short term goal.
However, it has been seen that ambitious employees like Machilla enjoy the delegation of
powers and perform better under an environment where they can implement their ideas (Harsh,
2017).
Conclusion
The observation and analysis of the case facts from the perspective of individual perception and
failure of leadership styles provide two conclusions. The primary reason behind the apathy of
Machilla can be attributed to her wrong perception of herself. She is suffering from a role
conflict caused by a paradox of the conclusion of the teams about her and her self-perception. A
flaw in the leadership style of Mr. Basin can also be identified; if certain individuals in a small
team perceive his leadership style as an autocratic style then he is required to improve his acts
quite considerably. Although he is setting an example for the team and showing them a path,
however, it is a failure in maintaining the morals of the team in high spirits. “Coach Style
leadership “instead of “derogatory remarks” can act as a better option for him. His statement
where he said that “Machilla” is a “ hot-blooded enthusiastic worker, sets a bad example for a
leader in the terms of setting the right environment in a setup where team dynamism is
important.

References
Abusalah, M. (2019). Johari Window Technique Can Improve Knowledge Sharing.
Medium.com, https://medium.com/@muabusalah/johari-window-technique-can-improve-
the-culture-of-knowledge-sharing-f9c853a549e4.
Bateman, T. (2019). Rethinking Leadership with Broader Mindsets. Psychology Today,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/getting-proactive/201905/rethinking-
leadership-broader-mindsets.
Chatman, J. (2013). Psychological Perspectives on Leadership. Harvard Business Press,
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/CHATMAN/papers/Psychological_Perspectives_on_Lea
dership.pdf.
Harsh, A. (2017). Understanding Group Dynamics at Work. Huff Post,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-group-dynam_b_9729822.
Henderson, R. (2017). The Science Behind Why People Follow the Crowd. The Psychology
Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201705/the-science-
behind-why-people-follow-the-crowd.
Kramer, R. (2014). The Psychology of Leadership: New Approaches. Stanford Business,
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/books/psychology-leadership-new-
approaches.

Markman, A. (2013). Thinking About the Actions of People and Groups. Psychology Today,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/201301/thinking-about-the-
actions-people-and-groups.
S.P.Myres. (2013). The Difference Between Team And Group Dynamics. Team Technology,
https://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/team/dynamics/vs-group-dynamics/.