W13185

MOTIVATED REASONING, LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Syed Salman Ahmad, Sheetanshu Mishra and Santosh Kumar wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The
authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised
certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2013-05-06

Ranjan Mehta could hear the distant echo of the words ringing in his ears. He stared in disbelief at the
case in his hand, at all that analysis down the drain. He could feel the eyes of his classmates boring into
his skull. He had let his group down. “There were high expectations for us,” he thought. He felt
completely shattered and wondered how his teammates felt, but couldn’t bring himself to look them in the
eyes. With his head down, he began to reflect on the events that had brought him to the current situation
and wondered how things could have gone so completely wrong.

IMT NAGPUR

Located in the centre of India, the Institute of Management Technology (IMT) Nagpur was one of the up-
and-coming business schools in the country. After only a few years of existence it was making its
presence felt among the nation’s elite business schools. It was well known for its beautiful campus and
was consistently ranked among the top 20 business schools in India, ranking even in the top 10 on
parameters of infrastructure and quality of faculty. The student enrolment had been growing rapidly. It
was mandatory for all students to reside on campus, which was a vibrant hub of activity, especially after
the classes finished in the evening. IMT Nagpur was part of the IMT family of institutions that had other
campuses located in Ghaziabad and Hyderabad in India and in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

RANJAN MEHTA: ROAD TO IMT

Ranjan Mehta had successfully passed the Common Admission Test (a prerequisite for entering into most
MBA programmes in India) conducted by the Indian Institutes of Management, scoring in the 90th
percentile. Upon the announcement of results he was heartbroken, as he had expected to get at least in the
96th percentile, which would allow him to participate in the next series of qualifiers to gain admission to
the premier institutes of India. He crossed IMT off his list after seeing the results, as he felt there was no
chance of getting into such an institute with his scores. He was by nature pessimistic and always prepared
for the worst-case scenario, his justification being that “if you’re prepared to meet the worst, nothing will
ever unhinge you.” His surprise was evident when the letter arrived at his doorstep informing him of the

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 2 9B13C010

venue for his interview. At the interview, he made it a point to get noticed in the group discussion, and
spoke his mind on the various questions posed to him in the personal interview. Mehta remembered
telling one of his friends, “I just couldn’t bear to lose this chance, it’s a great institute and it’s new! I think
I’ve done well enough and I should probably get in, this is one of the few institutes that will be able to
recognize me for who I am.”

He recalled:

I was very proud that I had come to a management institute when I was twenty-one, while many
of my peers were around twenty-five years old. On that level, I still managed to impress them
with what I could say or do without any experience. For this, IMT Nagpur provided that kind of
platform, as the institute was very young. One of the major reasons for coming to IMT was that I
am a big fan of Prasoon Joshi.1 I was very surprised to know that he came out of IMT Ghaziabad.
Before I came here, when we were getting ready to leave, I and my dad used to joke that I will be
the Prasoon Joshi of IMT Nagpur. I felt that I couldn’t be that anywhere else. I had a chance to be
one of the torch-bearers of IMT, to take IMT Nagpur further and be recognized for that. So, I
thought that it was a very good institute. It was young and so was I.

Mehta got a good start at IMT Nagpur, involving himself in various activities and making it a point to be
at the top of his class. He was popular among his classmates; his gregarious nature made it easy for him to
meet and befriend new people and his sense of humour was appreciated by others. There was a trimester
system at the institute and one of the seven subjects in the first trimester was organizational behaviour,
popularly known as OB.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

This subject was one of the most demanding in the first trimester, due to the pedagogy used by the
professor. Half of the OB classes involved a lengthy, in-depth case analysis that included presentations by
groups as well as individual cold calling. Mehta recalled that this kept students alert and eradicated any
complacency, especially as a significant part of the grade was for class participation. The classes,
according to him, were always exciting and Mehta very much looked forward to OB. The only aspect that
bothered him was that one did not get to choose one’s group (individuals were randomly assigned to
groups) and would not know when the group would be called to present its analysis. He felt that this
handicapped him from being able to give his best performance. After the groups were announced, Mehta
scrambled to see which people were in his group. He recalled:

Organizational behaviour came as close to psychology as it could. I have always had an

inclination towards psychology, but never got a chance to do anything related to it. So, I was very
excited to take charge immediately and amongst the people that were there, I wanted to be the
leader. I wanted to make sure that we were the best group in the course.

THE TEAM

The team was diverse, with many interesting members. Besides Mehta, there were four others, and one
member to whom Mehta felt instantly connected was Suresh Kumar. He seemed to be the ideal teammate
— hard-working, quiet and very knowledgeable. Mehta knew that he would be working most closely with

1
Prasoon Joshi was a leading figure in the Indian advertising world.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 3 9B13C010

him. He recalled, “I thought that I couldn’t do everything myself and I needed somebody who would be
able to execute the ideas and act as a pillar of support. Kumar was very willing to do whatever was sent
his way. At that point I thought he was very calm and very ready to do work. So, somebody like him was
ideal.” Kumar reciprocated the feeling saying, “Till today, my feeling about him has not changed. He is a
very talented guy; he has good analytical skills, is well behaved and committed. So, I felt that this was
one guy with whom I could work well.”

Mehta prided himself on reading through the cases at least three times in order to offer the most insightful
analysis. The group that would present the analysis would be unknown until they were picked by drawing
a number in class. It was similar to a lottery; however, the probability of being picked increased with
time. Mehta hoped that his group would be the very first to be chosen, and prior to the analysis of the first
case, he had made it a point when the group met for the first time to rehearse how it would present its
analysis to the class. He demanded perfection and made sure that the analysis would be as extensive as
possible. He listened to everyone’s insights and cross-questioned all members to make sure that they
would not be nervous. His presence was dominating and he knew that sometimes his methods could be
harsh. Yet he believed that the ends justified the means and the group did not protest much. Mudit,
another team member, recalled:

Ranjan naturally takes charge and once his mind is made up, it is difficult to change it. He was
actually a bit bossy, but some group members were also stubborn in their ways. One of them
would be downtown most of the times when there was a group meet and another [Manoj] would
rarely turn up; another was frequently late. So he had to be bossy at times to make the group
stick.

Though the group had synergy, Mehta often felt that it was not working hard enough. He did not hesitate
to point this out to his group members and would often criticize them. This would frequently result in
analyzing the case on his own and then distributing the various parts to the group and highlighting what
they would have to say during the presentation. Recalling his thoughts at the time, he said:

I thought I was the best person to analyze all the cases and they were happy with it, and at that
time OB was the numero uno subject in the first trimester. So, people were happy that I was
taking the load and distributing the parts to them. I was happy that I got to analyze the case
myself and come up with the solution.

Recalling Mehta’s interpersonal style, Kumar said:

Ranjan is a talented guy, but he was not able to communicate well with all group mates. If he felt
that group mates were not contributing to the case analysis, he would stop calling them for
discussions and would say that he and I could do the entire case analysis by ourselves. Sometimes
we forced them to contribute. I had noticed that if any group member was not contributing to the
case analysis, he would be unhappy, but if the member was contributing then he would be happy.
I thought that as a team leader, this should not be. If a group member is not contributing, it might
be because of some other justifiable reason, like on one occasion one member had an important
sports event when the analysis was due. But most of the time, it was just us two who analyzed the
cases.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 4 9B13C010

According to Hitesh, another team member:

Once I read a case and went to him to share my analysis, but he was very busy with his music
club and thus would not listen to me. In group work, he used to do his own part very well and if
others would not do their share, he would do that on his own and then he wouldn’t listen to
anyone. But we had faith in his capability and thought that it would be better that we let him do
things as he wants to, as he will do the things that we all need.

CASE ANALYSIS AND IN-CLASS PRESENTATIONS

When the day came to present the first case, Mehta’s group was not called and another group came to
present the case. Mehta felt that this group’s analysis was inferior to that of his group, and when the time
came to give individual comments he made sure that his group’s analysis was heard. When the
opportunity arose, he explained the case completely and to his professor’s satisfaction. He was praised for
his analysis and this increased his confidence, as well as his group’s confidence in him. Mehta now felt
more responsible than ever for his group’s performance. As time passed, the cases became more
challenging and Mehta became more and more impatient. Five cases had passed with no sign of his group
being called, and he was no longer the dominant force in class. He recalled:

People used to come up to me and tell me that in the beginning of the academic year they were
scared of me, as I had my hand up all the time; the professor asked the question and I had the
answer. And that’s who I wanted to be because I had never been that person, the person who’s in
front of the class, ready, prepared, the ideal student. At one point, people’s perceptions changed.
And that was the turning point. I wanted to come back, I wanted that image back.

Other students were getting more accurate and elaborate with their answers, and Mehta now had to devote
extra effort just to keep up. There were two students in particular that he was beginning to feel threatened
by, and often these two would counter his opinions and come out on top. The pressure to prove himself to
his classmates and his professor was at an all-time high. He remembered:

These two other people, Hamid Anwar and Joseph Andrews, came from different backgrounds —
Andrews came from a commerce background and I respected him in that area, and Anwar was a
computer engineer who I respect more because he tries to do his best in every area that he gets
into. But then it was, like, OB is my subject, I should be number one in OB, not these people. So
then I started reading further, not just the textbooks but other journals, whatever book I got my
hands on. I read, thinking it could help the analysis further, so I focused completely on OB at that
time. Accounting is not my thing, other people can take it; also, OB was the subject that most
people were scared of or wanted to achieve in. I’ve seen in each trimester there is one subject in
which achieving counts for far more than achieving in other subjects and, in the first term, OB
was that subject. And so I thought that I should be the one to do the best.

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

The sixth case was a two-part case about the practices of a hospital in the United States, its emphasis on
safety regulations and the adoption of a policy of full disclosure of medical errors. After reading the case,
Mehta felt that the hospital was on the wrong track and that it would be unsuccessful in the long run. Yet
he had found from his past experiences that the cases were usually selected to exploit the common biases
of students and that there was a good chance of other analyses being completely contrary to his own.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 5 9B13C010

This time, Mehta’s group did not have a proper presentation ready, unlike the previous cases where the
group was fully prepared with slides. Evidently, the passage of time had dampened the group’s
enthusiasm. If the group were called on, he would have to carry the group and hope that his teammates
would not embarrass him. In any case, his individual presentation would be lauded, but the analysis
would be claimed as a group effort and not his own. “It will be alright,” he convinced himself.

It was time for class and with unsteady breath he waited for his group’s number to be called, his stomach
churning. The uncertainty always made him anxious. The group’s preparation was not substantial; he
would have to say something remarkable, maybe by countering popular opinion. The number was called
and it was another group’s turn. He turned towards his teammates and could see that they were visibly
happy and he heaved a sigh of relief. The group would be better prepared for the next part of the case.
After listening to the group’s analysis, which was quite unlike his own, he waited for the individuals to be
called up on stage to give their own insights, and this time his turn was up. Mehta approached the stage
with complete confidence; the stage always felt familiar to him and being the centre of attention came
naturally. The group’s analysis was completely converse to his own and he would only need to counter
each statement with his own interpretation of the data and situation. He had already noted each point the
group had made.

Up on stage, he disputed the claims made by the group that had presented. He spelled out certain doom
for the hospital — disclosure policies on safety should not be a major concern for a hospital, he dictated.
It was a business and the focus should be on making a profit. Having a policy on full disclosure of
medical errors would only harm the business due to negative publicity. He remembered how his professor
had said in the very beginning that there is no singular analysis for a case. He applied this lesson
meticulously, completely refuting the group’s insights, knowing that even though he was unconvinced of
his own analysis it could not be proven wrong. He recalled:

Though I wasn’t convinced at all by the stand that I took, it was a matter of ego, as it happened
that both Anwar and Andrews had taken the stand that the hospital would succeed and at that
point I just wanted to show that there is another way of looking at it. When it came down to
analyzing the case, I stuck to my guns. I thought that Children’s Hospital would succeed — in my
heart I wanted it to succeed — but I wanted me to succeed more than the hospital. I wanted to
show up these two people in class.

Before the class ended, his view was broadly challenged by most of the class and he had no difficulty in
laying to rest their claims. As he came from a long lineage of doctors, he felt that he knew how the
medical system worked. He said:

My paternal grandfather was on the National Ayurvedic Advisory Board to the Prime Minister of
India, and my uncle had worked as a gastroenteritic surgeon in AIIMS.2 On the paternal side,
almost everybody has forayed into medicine and they know the ins and outs of medicine, and I’m
the only boy on the paternal side, so I tried to keep in touch with this heritage and am proud of
that lineage.

Still, Mehta seemed unnerved that most of the class had a view that was contrary to his own. At the end of
the session, the next case to be analyzed was circulated. As expected, it was a sequel to the current case
and seemed more challenging. It concerned the actual functioning of the hospital six years from the
adoption of the full-disclosure policy and focus on safety. He decided to stick to his point of view; he
could interpret the sequel from this perspective too. He recalled:
2
AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) was one of India’s most reputed hospitals.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 6 9B13C010

Whatever I did in the analysis I did with the intention of the hospital failing. So I focussed on
finding out whatever was going wrong with the hospital and highlighting that. Once I had said
something in class, I did not want to go back on it. I didn’t want people to say, “He said this in
class previously and now in the analysis he is saying something else.” I wanted to follow one
stream, knowing that going back on what I said in class would be more embarrassing than having
to admit that somebody else is right.

Prior to class, he reviewed the facts one more time, but the case did not support his stance in any way.
Children’s Hospital seemed to be doing fine; the case did not lend itself to pessimism. The hospital had in
the last six years been slowly progressing ahead of other hospitals. Mehta had his guard up and looked at
the statistics one more time. He remembered how his professor had put emphasis on the fact that the
numbers often tell a different story and, being an engineer, he had complete faith in this statement. “I was
looking for support for my position and wasn’t getting it from anywhere,” said Mehta.

However, when he turned to the exhibits in the case, to his surprise the numbers for 2007 (the current year
in the case) were completely different from the others. The hospital’s income was around half of what it
was the previous year. In fact, all the numbers seemed to have significantly dropped. “I immediately
latched onto it, it was like ‘it’s right here in the exhibit, but people aren’t looking at it carefully enough,’”
he recalled. The discovery overjoyed him and he rushed to tell the person closest to him, but thought
twice about it. He was sure no one would have noticed it; he himself had come upon it by accident.

He hurried to ask other people for their analysis of the case and his happiness was boundless when no
analysis matched his own. It was sheer luck that he had made this discovery; this would be his ace. A
group meeting would not be possible and his teammates would be busy with their own pursuits. He had
no requirement for a group meeting anyway, and only needed Kumar to confirm his views. As soon as
Kumar came, he showed him the numbers. He could sense some trepidation in Kumar, but he attributed it
to his quiet, shy nature and ignored it. Explaining why he did not express his trepidation, Kumar said,
“After the first few cases, I felt that his analysis was better than mine. So there was a notion that whatever
he says is correct.”

After meeting with Kumar, Mehta called up his other teammates and told them their parts. If their turn
came tomorrow, the analysis would be nothing short of spectacular.

D-DAY

Organizational behaviour was the first class of the day and, besides Kumar, the others were unaware of
the full analysis. The case presentation was distributed in such a manner that Mehta would get to present
the main argument, whereas the others would just skim the surface of the case and recall the events that
had brought about the current scenario.

Class started and Mehta’s group number was called; finally it was their turn! It was as if destiny had
written this day for him. The group started with the analysis, but the presentation lacked flow and was not
up to par; they had not rehearsed or even met as a group for this case analysis. Still, Mehta knew that the
final analysis would overshadow everything else. After Kumar finished his part, Mehta stood up on stage
and made his claim that Children’s Hospital was failing miserably. He saw the disbelief on the faces in
front of him and could not wait to show them the data. He asked the class to turn to the exhibit that listed
various metrics of the hospital’s performance and to witness how in 2007 the figures had dropped to
almost half the totals of the previous years. The disbelief in his classmates seemed to have compounded.
He could not understand their reaction. There should have been a flutter of “ooohs” and “ahhhs,” but the

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.
 Page 7 9B13C010

only person smiling was the professor. The group members were asked to return to their seats and the
professor asked the class if anyone wanted to point out whether something went wrong with the analysis.
Immediately all the hands in the class went up, including, to Mehta’s surprise, Kumar’s.

Mehta had failed to take into account that the exhibit figures for 2007 were year-to-date (YTD) figures, as
was stated clearly in the exhibit, which meant that the figures were incomplete. In fact, the publication
date of the case revealed that the figures were at best only for a couple of quarters of the year, and he had
based his entire analysis on those figures. After the class, Mehta asked Kumar how he could have allowed
him to commit such a fatal mistake, but Kumar could not explain why. Mehta could not believe that he
could have been so completely blindsided.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Narendra Singh Chaudhary's Organizational Behaviour_06/23/2023 at SOIL School of Business Design from Jun 2023 to Dec 2023.