Management Case Study
💡
Case Study 1: Organisational Conflict
Aurora Tech, a leading software development firm, is experiencing increasing
levels of conflict among its employees as the company transitions to a hybrid
work model. The leadership team is divided on how to handle these conflicts.
Some senior managers advocate for avoiding conflict altogether, others believe
it should be resolved quickly, and a few see it as a catalyst for innovation.
The company is organized into cross-functional teams, and the conflict arises
from varying perspectives:
1. Team Alpha adheres to traditional hierarchical values and views any disruption
as detrimental to productivity.
2. Team Beta, composed of employees from diverse cultural backgrounds,
acknowledges that disagreements are natural but seeks quick resolution to
maintain harmony.
3. Team Gamma, a younger and innovation-driven team, thrives on debates and
constructive disagreements to generate creative solutions.
The CEO, Sarah Hynes, must decide which approach to conflict management
aligns best with Aurora Tech’s mission to foster innovation without
compromising productivity and employee morale.
Questions:
Q.1) Which team’s approach to conflict aligns with the Modern View of Conflict,
and how should the CEO leverage their strengths to drive innovation at Aurora
Tech?
Management Case Study
1
a) Team Alpha: Enforce strict protocols to eliminate disruptions and focus on
maintaining efficiency.
b) Team Beta: Encourage structured dialogues but ensure quick conflict resolution
to preserve morale.
c) Team Gamma: Leverage their willingness to engage in constructive
disagreements to stimulate change and innovation.
d) Team Gamma: Encourage dialogues and ensure quick conflict resolution to
preserve morale.
e) Team Gamma: carry out debates and encourage constructive criticism while
maintaining final decision making with the team heads.
Q.2) If Sarah adopts the Human Relations View of Conflict, which strategy
would be most effective in addressing the tensions among teams?
a) Conduct team-building workshops to highlight the inevitability of conflict and
teach resolution techniques.
b) Create a conflict-free environment by centralizing decision-making and
enforcing uniform processes.
c) Implement strict conflict resolution timelines to minimize interruptions to
workflows.
d) Allow each team to manage conflicts independently according to their values
and goals.
e) Encourage the leadership team to step back and observe how conflicts
naturally resolve without intervention.
Q.3) How might the Traditional View of Conflict impact Aurora Tech's long-term
innovation strategy if adopted?
a) Innovation would flourish, as avoiding conflicts creates a stable and
harmonious environment.
b) Productivity would increase in the short term, but the company might stagnate
due to a lack of critical debate and fresh ideas.
Management Case Study
2
c) The company would attract experienced talent looking for a stable and nondisruptive workplace.
d) Conflicts would be resolved faster, allowing teams to focus solely on delivering
results.
e) Long-term strategies would benefit, as uniformity ensures all employees align
perfectly with organizational goals.
Answers and Explanations:
Ans.1) c) Leverage Team Gamma’s willingness to engage in constructive
disagreements to stimulate change and innovation.
Explanation: The Modern View of Conflict emphasizes the positive aspects of
constructive disagreements in driving innovation. Team Gamma’s approach aligns
with this view and can be harnessed to foster a culture of creativity and
adaptability.
Ans.2) a) Conduct team-building workshops to highlight the inevitability of
conflict and teach resolution techniques.
Explanation: The Human Relations View acknowledges that conflict is natural in
diverse organizations. Workshops can help normalize conflict and equip
employees with tools to resolve it constructively.
Ans.3) b) Productivity would increase in the short term, but the company might
stagnate due to a lack of critical debate and fresh ideas.
Explanation: The Traditional View avoids conflict, creating stability but stifling
innovation. While this might improve short-term productivity, it would likely hinder
long-term adaptability and creativity.
💡
Case Study 2: Organisation and Organisation Structure
Management Case Study
3
CityBuild, a fast-growing construction company, has seen its projects double in
the past two years. The CEO, Mr. Arjun, manages 10 direct reports, including
department heads and project leaders. While Mr. Arjun initially thrived in this
setup, he now struggles to keep up with updates, manage conflicts, and make
timely decisions. As per Graicunas' theory of span of management, the
complexity of relationships among his direct reports has exponentially increased,
with interactions (direct, cross, and group relationships) becoming difficult to
monitor. Productivity has declined, and critical decisions are delayed, prompting
the company to reassess its management structure.
Questions:
Q.1) According to Graicunas’ theory, what happens to the complexity of
relationships as the span of management increases?
a) The complexity grows linearly.
b) The complexity decreases due to streamlined processes.
c) The complexity grows exponentially with the number of subordinates.
d) The complexity remains constant regardless of the span.
Q.2) If Mr. Arjun decides to reduce his span of management, which of the
following is the most likely outcome?
a) Reduced workload for subordinates and quicker decision-making.
b) Improved direct communication and reduced complexity of relationships.
c) Increased hierarchical layers, leading to slower communication.
d) Loss of control over decision-making authority for Mr. Arjun.
Q.3) Which of these scenarios best explains the issue Mr. Arjun faces, based on
Graicunas’ theory?
a) Mr. Arjun’s team lacks expertise, resulting in constant supervision needs.
b) Mr. Arjun’s direct and indirect interactions with his team have exceeded
manageable limits.
Management Case Study
4
c) Mr. Arjun’s delegation skills are inadequate, creating bottlenecks.
d) Mr. Arjun’s span of control is too narrow, limiting his ability to oversee
operations.
Answers:
Ans.1) c) The complexity grows exponentially with the number of subordinates.
Explanation: Graicunas’ theory states that the complexity of interactions increases
exponentially as the number of subordinates rises, considering direct, cross, and
group relationships.
Ans.2) b) Improved direct communication and reduced complexity of
relationships.
Explanation: Reducing the span of management decreases the number of
interactions and makes it easier for a manager to monitor and guide their
subordinates effectively.
Option C ("Increased hierarchical layers, leading to slower communication") is
incorrect in question 2 because:
While reducing the span of management may lead to adding layers to the
hierarchy, this does not necessarily cause slower communication. Effective
delegation, clear reporting structures, and proper use of communication
channels can mitigate delays.
The question focuses on the immediate impact of reducing the span of
management on complexity and communication, which is more directly
addressed by option B ("Improved direct communication and reduced
complexity of relationships").
In Graicunas' theory, the primary goal of reducing the span is to manage
relationship complexity, not necessarily to add layers that would inherently slow
communication. Slower communication is a potential consequence, but it depends
on how the hierarchy is managed rather than being an inevitable result.
Management Case Study
5
Ans.3) b) Mr. Arjun’s direct and indirect interactions with his team have
exceeded manageable limits.
Explanation: The exponential growth in interactions due to Mr. Arjun’s large span
of control has made managing relationships and decision-making overwhelming.
Management Case Study
6