Some observations from OB Field Task

Vinay Chaganti, Ph.D

Vidisha Garg, MBA

Caution Note

• Be assured that these observations

are made to help us understand the

diversity and depth of experience you

gained during the field task. These

findings do not influence your scoring

on the assignment.

• Also, we understand that some (or

most!) students may have responded

to the survey as mere formality. But

we still chose to report our findings

because there are at least few

students who might want to derive

more learning out of the exercise.

• We hope that you do not in any case

use these statistics to dig into how

and why your fellow students

responded. That is uncivil behavior.

And it beats the purpose here.

• Remember, Statistics are useful in

reporting aggregate opinions.

Remember, statistics can’t reveal

‘Truth’! They are at best indicative.

• Notice that the intention of these

observations is to create a basis for

you to think about some of the

concepts you learnt during the course.

So, as you keep glaring at the slides

that come next, keep thinking about

what explains the patterns you see.

• Lastly, we thank you for being such

good students. We hope to meet you

again in the next trimester with an

even more engaging course.

Did you stick to ‘rules’ of the task?

1. What do you think?

• Do you think the group could have collectively lied?

• Do you think there was at least one person in the group who

would have let out the sour fact?

• Did you think that ‘completion’ of task was more important

than ‘abiding’ by the rules?

Rule #1: After-college Hours

Statement: At least some members of the group bunked classes to finish the task.

• It can be clearly seen that there are 10-groups in which some members say that this rule

was compromised. What is more interesting is that there are other members in those same

groups who say they haven’t bunked classes! Could this mean that the group members do

not have a common understanding of what the rule meant or whether it was followed or

compromised? Think again!

Rule #2: No using vehicles

Statement: At least some members, or all of us, used vehicles to move around.

• It can be clearly seen that there are 13-groups in which some members indicate that they

used a vehicle. However, there are other members in those same groups who say they

haven’t used vehicles! One possibility we can think of is that some groups may have twisted

the rule by either leaving out personal or public commute options and choosing the other.

You would know best, but we appeal to you to Think again!

Rule #3: Stay together

Statement: All members were present for all interviews.

• Note: Some students brought to our notice a related question on the survey did not have

the option of indicating ‘0’ absentees. Their responses have been corrected before making

this chart.

• 15-groups indicate that there was absenteeism. The problem with those groups is that they

haven’t had the opportunity experience the kind of group dynamic there could have been

with more members in the team. Think about it. We bet that it could be easier to work with

two people at a time than to work with four people. You could prove us wrong!

Rule #4: Distance range (2 Km)

Statement: We stuck to the distance range of 2 Kilometres.

• The graph doesn’t reveal the reality accurately. According to the graph, there are about 13-

groups which have gone beyond 2-Km distance. But during the presentations, we figured

out from the places students mentioned they visited that this rule was mostly ignored. The

excuse given was that it was difficult to find people to interview. But think again! Was it so

difficult to find people? If you were to repeat the task, would you say finding your

interviewees is easy or difficult?

Was there an ‘issue’?

1. Issues described included the following:

• Hosteller / Day Scholar

• Male / Female

• No ID Card

• No Permission Letter from College

That’s what we were told, at least.

Issue #1: Hosteller / Day Scholar

As much as issue to hostellers as it was to day scholars

Issue #2: Boy / Girl

As much as issue to boys as it was to girls

Issue #3: Not having an ID Card

Statement: Not having ID card was an issue.

Couple of smart students have described their ways of handling this situation when

someone asked them for an ID Card. And that was to show the suspicious interviewees, a

copy of the fee paid to the college. One needs to understand the problem at its root, not the

surface. ID card is just a testimony that you are a student, and there are definitely more

ways of proving that you are a student. Think for example, carrying a copy of the slides in

which your activity was described.

Issue #4: Not having permission letter from college

Statement: Not having permission letter from the college was an issue.

In finding six interviewees, one easier alternative to which students could have taken

recourse to is skip the stiff/skeptical interviewees. Had the decision been to skip, this issue

would have automatically become a smaller instance of a pin-sized trouble.

Checking patterns from your responses

Watch for what you learnt or failed to learn

Exaggerations (think ‘lake wobegone effect’!)

Describe this. (think coordination!)

How many groups changed decisions mid-way?

Scary numbers in the last column (think leadership!)

How did you succeed, by chance or by hard work?

Ask me! Why should luck matter?

Do we enjoy diversity?

Procrastination fighting social desirability!

TAFN!

Thanks for being ‘studious’ students.

Vinay Chaganti, PhD

Vidisha Garg, MBA